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

Related Parts of This Source

1,760 chars

an undue hardship. On this disputed and undeveloped record, these questions should not

be decided on summary judgment.

Suarez also brings a claim for failing to accommodate her weekly Saturday

Sabbath. Again, we consider the facts in a light most favorable to Suarez. While

acknowledging that she accepted a position that worked on Friday and Saturday nights,

Suarez contends that she told her supervisor that her schedule conflicted with her Sabbath

and asked to change schedules. She argues that the School should have changed her

schedule to allow for Friday and Saturday nights off. In the alternative, Suarez asserts

that the School should have told her to apply for another position with days off that did

not conflict with her Sabbath. The School responded that these accommodations would

cause undue hardship to the School and that it did invite Suarez to apply for another

position when it included her in the mass email notice of the job opening.

We consider whether accommodating Suarez’s beliefs by changing her scheduled

days off would cause an undue burden. The School submits evidence that each CNA

position has designated days off to maintain adequate staffing levels. Under the

collective bargaining agreement, these days off cannot be rescheduled without changing

positions. When positions with different days off become available, permanent

employees outside their probationary period can bid on them based on seniority. If a job

19
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State

does not receive bids from a permanent employee, the position is opened to probationary

employees.

Suarez did not finish her probationary period and did not become a permanent