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

Related Parts of This Source

1,757 chars

The Porter court recognized that a “reasonable accommodation” is “‘one that

“eliminates the conflict between employment requirements and religious practices.”’” Id.

at 951 (quoting Wright v. Runyon, 2 F.3d 214, 217 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Ansonia, 479

U.S. at 70)). The accommodation does not have to be the one preferred by the employee

so long as it eliminates the conflict. Id. The court found that since the employer offered

the employee a shift change that would have eliminated the scheduling conflict without

any impact on the employee’s pay or benefits, the employer had offered a reasonable

accommodation. Id. at 952. The employer did not need to offer a position with different

work days, as preferred by the employee.

The employee in Porter also argued that the employer’s offer to change shifts was

insufficient because her supervisor mentioned it to her, but did not invite her to apply or

inform her how to make such a request. Id. at 953. In rejecting this argument, the court

noted that, “[i]n requiring employers to ‘offer reasonable accommodations,’ we have

encouraged ‘bilateral cooperation’ between the employee and employer and recognized

that employers must engage in a dialogue with an employee seeking an accommodation.”

Id. While cooperation and dialogue are important, courts have not required the level of

hand-holding suggested by the employee. Id. Thus, the court found that the supervisor’s

23
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State

suggestion to change shifts was sufficient and met the employer’s obligation to provide a

reasonable accommodation.

In this case, taken in a light most favorable to Suarez, the evidence shows that she