Court Opinion

ID: 9477128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:15:03.085701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:42.850857
License: Public Domain

HILL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Appellee’s religious beliefs prevented him from working Friday evenings and Saturdays, although his position frequently called for such work. Upon learning of this restriction, appellant did not terminate *453the appellee, but instead attempted to accommodate him through the following actions:
(1) Attempting to arrange a transfer for appellee to the first shift to relieve him from working Friday evenings after sundown;
(2) Transferring appellee to the first available vacancy on the first shift, thereby allowing him to work a full week without Friday evening or Saturday work;
(3) Excepting appellee from work on Saturday “maintenance” days during 1982 and 1983, although the maintenance department worked at least 49 Saturdays during that period;
(4) Excepting appellee from work on production Saturdays during the first three and one-half months of 1983 when production weekends began;
(5) Arranging alternative coverage or operating without an electrical instrument foreman for four hours on Friday evenings so that appellee would not have to work;
(6) Excusing appellee from covering a portion of a vacationing foreman’s shift, although such coverage is normally required;
(7) Scheduling other foremen to work twelve hour shifts and paying them premium wages to cover for appellee on Fridays and Saturdays;
(8) Operating appellee’s shift without a foreman resulting in decreased production and efficiency;
(9) Advising appellee that it was willing to consider any reasonable alternatives he could propose;
(10) Allowing appellee to obtain replacements for himself to cover portions of his shift;
(11) Holding several meetings among managers and supervisors to discuss potential methods of accommodation.
Immediately prior to his termination, ap-pellee assured his employer that he would work with his fellow foremen to arrange coverage for his shifts. Appellant agreed to this further accommodation. On Saturday, July 23, 1983, appellee failed to find a substitute for half of his shift, failed to show up for work, and failed to inform appellant that half of his shift would not be covered. Only then was appellee terminated.
Under Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 367, 93 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986), when an employer offers a reasonable accommodation of an employee’s religious beliefs, the employer satisfies its duty and is not required to consider every available alternative. Thus, so long as the above-described actions constituted reasonable accommodation, the district court’s enumeration of its own list of alternatives was irrelevant.
I believe that the above-described efforts clearly constituted a reasonable accommodation and that the district court’s finding to the contrary was clearly erroneous. I would reverse, and therefore I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion.