Balint v. Carson City, Nevada

[Douglas Laycock]

        The result is terrible, but didn't Hardison v. TWA pretty much already say
this?

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
>this case.
>
>Rick Garnett
>


Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
        512-232-1341 (phone)
        512-471-6988 (fax)
        dlaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu