Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/383814_pub.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,591 chars

432 U.S. 63, 84, 97 S. Ct. 2264, 53 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1977). Shortly after Kumar was

decided, the legislature passed chapter 168, Laws of 2014. This legislation amended

RCW 1.16.050 and granted certain State employees the right to two unpaid holidays per

calendar year for reasons of faith. LAWS OF 2014, ch. 168, § 1. The bill provided that the

State employer should grant the employee’s leave request unless the absence would

impose an undue hardship on the employer. Id. “Undue hardship” was to be defined by

the office of financial management. LAWS OF 2014, ch. 168, § 2

In response to this directive, the office of financial management adopted a

regulation defining “undue hardship” as an action requiring significant difficulty or

expense to the employer. WAC 82-56-020. In considering whether to grant unpaid leave

for religious purposes, a State employer should consider 10 factors:

(1) The number, composition, and structure of staff employed by the
employing entity or in the requesting employee’s program.
(2) The financial resources of the employing entity or the requesting
employee’s program.
(3) The number of employees requesting leave for each day subject
to such a request.
(4) The financial impact on the employing entity or requesting
employee’s program resulting from the employee’s absence and whether
that impact is greater than a de minimus cost to the employer in relation to
the size of the employing entity or requesting employee’s program.

16
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State