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

Related Parts of This Source

1,733 chars

to their shift.” CP at 247.

To succeed on summary judgment, the School must present undisputed evidence

that accommodating Suarez’s request for unpaid leave on September 29 caused the

School significant difficulty or expense. WAC 82-56-020. While the School contends

that calling in an employee for mandatory overtime is more than a de minimus expense,

nothing in the record demonstrates context. There is no evidence demonstrating the

actual impact on the School’s finances “in relation to the size of the employing entity or

requesting employee’s program.” WAC 82-56-020(4). Nor is there evidence that the

cost or inconvenience to the employees was more than de minimus. While the cost of

calling in an employee on mandatory overtime might be significant to a smaller

employer, the cost may very well be de minimus to a large employer.

The School also asserts that Suarez’s request for leave on religious grounds cannot

be compared to an employee who calls in sick. This issue is not sufficiently briefed in

this case and we decline to decide whether a person seeking religious accommodation

should be treated the same as a person calling in sick. Nevertheless, we note that the

record only indicates that employees called in as “unavailable” without further

explanation. This occurred so frequently that the School had a regular process for

covering the shifts and negotiated mandatory overtime in the collective bargaining

agreement. If the School is accommodating unplanned leave for secular reasons other

18
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State

than sickness, it raises a question as to whether accommodating Suarez’s request caused