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
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 383814_pub.pdf
Full Text
1,773 charsBut the Porter court’s decision did not hinge on the supervisor’s suggestion that the plaintiff switch jobs; indeed, it recognized that its prior decision had held that a reasonable accommodation could come from a CBA that gave an employee the option to 2 Indeed, if during Ms. Suarez’s employment, the School had sent out several e- mails to employees (and Ms. Suarez) making them aware of job postings and asking for applications, Ms. Suarez’s confusion appears wholly unreasonable. 4 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 38381-4-III Suarez v. State—dissenting transfer assignments, even absent any direct communication with the employee. Id. (citing Rodriguez v. City of Chicago, 156 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 1998)). The Supreme Court has similarly opined that a union seniority system for preferred shifts and scheduling changes “represented a significant accommodation to the needs, both religious and secular, of all [ ] employees.” Trans World Airlines, 432 U.S. at 78. Wright v. Runyon, 2 F.3d 214 (7th Cir. 1993), cited by the majority, goes further to confirm that such a system is a reasonable accommodation. In Wright, the plaintiff’s position was eliminated and he was invited, along with all other employees whose position was similarly eliminated, to bid for certain open jobs. Id. at 215-16. While the offered jobs did not accommodate the plaintiff’s religious practices, as the eliminated position had, there were also four jobs open to bids by all employees that would have accommodated the employee’s practices, and, based on seniority, he would have received at least two of those jobs. Id. at 216. The Seventh Circuit considered the bidding system itself the reasonable accommodation that would