Balint v. Carson City, Nevada
dlaycock at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU
Tue Nov 17 12:35:24 PST 1998
The result is terrible, but didn't Hardison v. TWA pretty much already say
At 12:44 PM 11/17/1998 -0500, you wrote:
>144 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 1998).
>An employee sued under Title VII for religious discrimination. The Court
>held that the employer was not required to alter an existing, bona fide,
>seniority based system of allocating work shifts to accommodate a
>sabbath observer's religious needs.
>The Court acknowledged that an employer has a duty to accommodate
>religious practices unless it would cause "undue hardship." However, it
>noted that it is not an unlawful employment practice to apply different
>"terms, privileges, or conditions" of employment under a bona fide
>seniority system. The employer argued that, given the seniority system,
>ANY accommodation requirement would impose an undue hardship.
>There was no duty to accommodate the employee's need not to work on
>Saturday's even if the particular accommodation had only a de minimis
>impact on the employer's sytem.
>Any thoughts? The Ninth Circuit has apparently sua sponte en banc-ed
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
dlaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu
More information about the Religionlaw