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

Full Text

1,063 chars

eliminate the conflict between the employer’s requirements and the plaintiff’s religious

practices. Id. at 217. The court held that the bidding system allowed the plaintiff to

select a position that would not interfere with his religion and that because the plaintiff

“chose not to take full advantage of the bidding system,” he was responsible for the

consequences, not his employer. Id.

I would affirm the summary dismissal of Ms. Suarez’s claims because the School

fulfilled its duty to reasonably accommodate by offering her nine annual days off for her

5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 38381-4-III
Suarez v. State—dissenting

religious practices, far in excess of the two annual days off permitted by the CBA. Any

accommodation beyond the two days required by the CBA was an undue burden because

it would give Ms. Suarez a benefit over more senior employees. Because the majority

misstates the School’s duty to accommodate, I dissent.

_________________________________
Lawrence-Berrey, A.C.J.

6