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

Related Parts of This Source

1,749 chars

informed the School that her weekly schedule conflicted with her church service. Unlike

Porter, however, the School does not point to any attempts it made to eliminate this

conflict. The School does not claim that it asked for volunteers to switch shifts or days

off, and the School does not assert that Suarez was told she could apply for a different

position to eliminate the conflict. The only claim made by the School is that it included

Suarez in the notice of job openings emailed to all employees. This passive, generalized

action was not an attempt to accommodate Suarez’s scheduling conflict. It was neither

dialogue nor an attempt at cooperation. Unlike the employer in Porter, there is no

evidence that the School offered or suggested any accommodations.

We follow the federal courts in their application of Title VII and hold that an

employer’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious

beliefs requires the employer to take active or affirmative steps to resolve a scheduling

conflict if it can be done without undue hardship. See Proctor v. Consol. Freightways

Corp. of Del., 795 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir. 1986) (fact that employee applied for position that

would require her to work on her Sabbath did not excuse employer from its statutory duty

to initiate good faith efforts to accommodate employee’s religious beliefs); Cosme v.

Henderson, 287 F.3d 152, 161 (2d Cir. 2002) (employer’s multiple offers to

24
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State

accommodate employee’s Sabbath observance were reasonable and employee was not

entitled to skip work every Saturday after bidding on a position he knew would require