US EEOC and DOJ Sues to Protect Pilgrimage to Mecca.

[GreyICE]

This is my post:

*snip*

Well we've moved past your nonsense interpretation of the 1st amendment thankfully, and moved past the idea that it was unduly disruptive to grant this.

Now we're down to arguing duration. Would there be an issue if the school district inquired as to the duration, and then suggested that 2 weeks was more appropriate? Probably not, no. That's a reasonable accommodation (5-6 day pilgrimage, traditional visit to the tomb, and 2-3 days travel time, combined with lunar and Gregorian calendars not meshing perfectly). In that hypothetical situation... I agree with SCOTUS. There is almost no point in arguing a hypothetical, because everyone involved always has their own details they are mentally adding to the hypothetical. So you end up arguing based on assumptions not stated.

If that's where we're left, then I think we've reached an agreement. Her duration may or may not have been overly long, but the school district violated the 1st amendment, and that's just not allowed.

Here's how you quoted it:

Now we're down to arguing duration. Would there be an issue if the school district inquired as to the duration, and then suggested that 2 weeks was more appropriate? Probably not, no. That's a reasonable accommodation (5-6 day pilgrimage, traditional visit to the tomb, and 2-3 days travel time, combined with lunar and Gregorian calendars not meshing perfectly). In that hypothetical situation... I agree with SCOTUS.

SCOTUS hasn't chimed in on this particular issue, yet.

The school need not incur more than minimal costs in order to accommodate an employee’s religious practices. An employer need not incur anything more than ordinary administrative costs, and can deny an accommodation if it would diminish efficiency (as 3 weeks of the regular teacher being away would, in fact, do). They also need not infringe on other employees’ job rights or benefits, impair workplace safety, or causes coworkers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of work (and here, obviously, 3 weeks out means that coworkers and substitutes would have to carry on the employee's share of work). Three weeks is a long time, and any employer would consider that a hardship. So, you say it's not a hardship - it's seems lengthy to the point of ridiculousness to me. Let's see where the court goes with it.

There is almost no point in arguing a hypothetical, because everyone involved always has their own details they are mentally adding to the hypothetical. So you end up arguing based on assumptions not stated.

If that's where we're left, then I think we've reached an agreement. Her duration may or may not have been overly long, but the school district violated the 1st amendment, and that's just not allowed.

If the duration was overly long, than there was no violation, and the school can and will argue that any requested time off - even the week - was (a) not required by the religion because it only requires attendance once in the person's life (if they are able) and reasonable accommodation doesn't mean that they get to go anytime and every time they wan, and (b) that even a week or 10 days poses an undue burden because of its effect on classroom education and the cost to the school district - among other things. They will likely also argue that if this is a required reasonable accommodation of religion then any religious person must be given time off for any religious observance, even one that is not mandatory, and that would pose an undue administrative burden.

And, if there is a constitutional violation found that violation would be of the 14th Amendment, which INCORPORATES the freedoms of and from religion. The First Amendment does not apply directly to the school district. How much do you want to bet that in the Justice Department pleadings in the case, they will state exactly that?

Now I am utterly done with your senseless derails. I don't really fucking care to follow your wanderings, and I don't really care what you think about that. As I said before, I've pretty much been fucking done with you since you felt a burning desire to argue by altering my words, and everything since then has confirmed this was a giant waste of fucking time. People who feel the need to lie when quoting others are rarely worth it.

Lets do a final summary, which you have not objected to once so far: this action by the school district violated the first amendment, the DOJ is entirely right to intervene in first amendment cases, and what she was asking for was a reasonable accommodation.

[Coito ergo sum]

Looks like I quoted you accurately. I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

But, whatever. I didn't derail this - you made a claim about what the framers intended and that the First Amendment applied to limit State action originally. That was YOUR claim. I merely set you straight. You kept at it, though, and continued to try to argue the point.

I didn't alter your words - I quoted them exactly. Anyone reading the two quotes can see plainly.

The only one lying here is you - trying to claim that I "admitted" something when I never did.

And, you have the nerve to say this:

Lets do a final summary, which you have not objected to once so far: this action by the school district violated the first amendment, the DOJ is entirely right to intervene in first amendment cases, and what she was asking for was a reasonable accommodation.

I have denied that all along. How can you possibly claim that I haven't objected to that once? You just quoted me saying this:

If the duration was overly long, than there was no violation, and the school can and will argue that any requested time off - even the week - was (a) not required by the religion because it only requires attendance once in the person's life (if they are able) and reasonable accommodation doesn't mean that they get to go anytime and every time they wan, and (b) that even a week or 10 days poses an undue burden because of its effect on classroom education and the cost to the school district - among other things. They will likely also argue that if this is a required reasonable accommodation of religion then any religious person must be given time off for any religious observance, even one that is not mandatory, and that would pose an undue administrative burden.

And, if there is a constitutional violation found that violation would be of the 14th Amendment, which INCORPORATES the freedoms of and from religion. The First Amendment does not apply directly to the school district. How much do you want to bet that in the Justice Department pleadings in the case, they will state exactly that?

Is that in any way unclear? In my opinion, the claimed unpaid vacation is unreasonable. It is not a reasonable accommodation. The Hajj is not a "religious holiday," and is not the equivalent of having Christmas off. The Islamic idea is that Muslims should, if they are able, make a pilgrimage to Mecca once in their lives. it doesn't have to be every year, or any given year.

It's Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which requires school boards to make “reasonable accommodation” of their employees’ religious needs. See, for example, Pinsker v Aurora Education: http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2 ... -1240.html School boards may offer any accommodation that is reasonable, however, and are not required to accept the accommodation proposed by the employee (Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook, 1986). Schools are not required to accommodate an employee’s religious needs if doing so would cause “undue hardship” on the employer, such as disturbing the board’s collective-bargaining agreement with the teachers’ union or imposing more than de minimis costs on the employer (T.W.A. v. Hardison,1977, and Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, 1985).

There is an undue burden on the school system to allow teachers to take 3 weeks off during the school year, and require that a substitute be hired, and require the students to suffer a disruption in the flow of their education. I've said this before, o.k.? I've been consistent on this. It's not reasonable for her to take 3 weeks off, IMHO. Please stop saying that I agree with you, when I don't.

As stated in Pinsker: "Because teachers are likely to have not only different religions but also different degrees of devotion to their religions, a school district cannot be expected to negotiate leave policies broad enough to suit every employee's religious needs perfectly. Defendant's policy, although it may require teachers to take occasional unpaid leave, is not an unreasonable accommodation of teachers' religious practices. Thus, the trial court correctly determined that plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing of discrimination."

The Pinsker case involved a Jewish teacher who complained that Christmas was traditionally not a school day, and that he had to take personal days for his religious holidays. He claimed a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a violation of the 14th Amendment which incorporates the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause by bringing an action under 42 USC Sec. 1983. The trial court ruled against him, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed. Thus, there was neither a civil rights act violation, nor a constitutional violation.

[GreyICE]

Looks like I quoted you accurately. I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

Fuck you, no you didn't. If you're going to lie like this, then I have no fucking desire to talk to you. That's the behavior of low scum.

[Coito ergo sum]

What the hell do you think I misquoted?

What you claim to be the accurate quote:

Now we're down to arguing duration. Would there be an issue if the school district inquired as to the duration, and then suggested that 2 weeks was more appropriate? Probably not, no. That's a reasonable accommodation (5-6 day pilgrimage, traditional visit to the tomb, and 2-3 days travel time, combined with lunar and Gregorian calendars not meshing perfectly). In that hypothetical situation... I agree with SCOTUS.

I quoted that accurately. Please, by all means, tell me where I quoted something different than exactly what you wrote. You keep making the allegation, but you've not identified a misquote. Apparently, you're pissed off that I split your post and addressed your points one at a time. That's not a misquote. I have addressed everything you've posted, which is more than I can say for you - you just pretend the counter-arguments to your assertions don't exist.

You can stop the name-calling and getting your panties in a bunch over it. That's just a Bush League, uncivil tactic. You know I didn't misquote you. I quoted you accurately. You're just, apparently, angry that you have been shown to be wrong. I've never personally attacked you, and I've always debated with you respectfully. You, on the other hand, have tried to claim I agreed with you, when I didn't, and tried to get out of discussion about the "intent of the framers" that you brought up by claiming that it was my derail because I responded to you.

[GreyICE]

You cut the entire fucking paragraph right down the fucking middle, and used it to change the meaning of what I wrote. And you have the nerve to say you quoted me accurately? Fuck no. That's fucking lying, again.

I'm uncivil? Because I'm honest in calling out what I see, rather than trying to think up nice sounding words that mean the same thing? Well, maybe I am. It's not very civil to say that the Catholic church is a pedophile protection scam, is it? But it seems reasonably accurate. When people lie, I call them liars. Is a fact.

[Coito ergo sum]

You cut the entire fucking paragraph right down the fucking middle, and used it to change the meaning of what I wrote. And you have the nerve to say you quoted me accurately? Fuck no. That's fucking lying, again.

I'm uncivil? Because I'm honest in calling out what I see, rather than trying to think up nice sounding words that mean the same thing? Well, maybe I am. It's not very civil to say that the Catholic church is a pedophile protection scam, is it? But it seems reasonably accurate. When people lie, I call them liars. Is a fact.

Oh, stop your bellyaching. I quoted part of the paragraph (accurately), and addressed it. Then I quoted the other part of the paragraph (accurately) and addressed it. I didn't "misquote" you, and I didn't "change what you wrote." I quoted you and addressed parts of your post separately. My quote of yours is accurate because it is precisely what you wrote.

You've quoted part of my posts too. At least I give you the courtesy of addressing ALL of what you write. You just quote the piece you want and then ignore the rest. Should I accuse you of "changing what I wrote" since you just opt to cut and paste one sentence or a couple of sentences? Why do you claim the right to only address a piece of my post, but then fly into a hissy fit when I do the same? Again - at least I address all your points.

I did NOT change the meaning of what you wrote. If you are claiming that I did, then explain how the meaning is different.

You still just blatantly ignore the fact that you were dead wrong about the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights in general applying directing to the states --- your statement that the "framers" intended that the Bill of Rights apply to the States was just plain wrong, and I've shown it - proved it. Yet you just piss and moan about style of responding to posts.

You falsely accuse people of being liars, that's for sure. The quote is accurate - I didn't leave anything out - I merely addressed your points seriatim , and there is certainly nothing wrong with doing so. Everyone can see what you wrote, and what my response was. And, that's why the one person who commented on your claim that I "changed what you wrote" said that they didn't see where I did anything of the kind.

[GreyICE]

Um, Coito, the last sentence from the first half? It clearly references the first sentence from the second half. Without them, the entire meaning of the paragraph changes. You used this change meaning to attack something I never fucking said.

An accurate quote does not consist solely of copying and pasting a few words someone wrote. It consists of accurately quoting the words and the meaning of the writing. You fucking fail. If you want to go play the selective quote trimming game, go bother freeperville, I'm sure it'll go over real well there. They love that shit.

[Coito ergo sum]

Um, Coito, the last sentence from the first half? It clearly references the first sentence from the second half. Without them, the entire meaning of the paragraph changes. You used this change meaning to attack something I never fucking said.

An accurate quote does not consist solely of copying and pasting a few words someone wrote. It consists of accurately quoting the words and the meaning of the writing. You fucking fail. If you want to go play the selective quote trimming game, go bother freeperville, I'm sure it'll go over real well there. They love that shit.

Oh - really? Then I'll expect you to only, from here on out, address the entirety of a post, and never quote only part of a post.

My quote was accurate.

But, here, to stop your crying, I'll quote it the way you want it.

Now we're down to arguing duration. Would there be an issue if the school district inquired as to the duration, and then suggested that 2 weeks was more appropriate? Probably not, no. That's a reasonable accommodation (5-6 day pilgrimage, traditional visit to the tomb, and 2-3 days travel time, combined with lunar and Gregorian calendars not meshing perfectly). In that hypothetical situation... I agree with SCOTUS. There is almost no point in arguing a hypothetical, because everyone involved always has their own details they are mentally adding to the hypothetical. So you end up arguing based on assumptions not stated.

If that's where we're left, then I think we've reached an agreement. Her duration may or may not have been overly long, but the school district violated the 1st amendment, and that's just not allowed.

Happy now?

And, I'll respond thusly:

SCOTUS hasn't chimed in on this particular issue, yet.

The school need not incur more than minimal costs in order to accommodate an employee’s religious practices. An employer need not incur anything more than ordinary administrative costs, and can deny an accommodation if it would diminish efficiency (as 3 weeks of the regular teacher being away would, in fact, do). They also need not infringe on other employees’ job rights or benefits, impair workplace safety, or causes coworkers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of work (and here, obviously, 3 weeks out means that coworkers and substitutes would have to carry on the employee's share of work). Three weeks is a long time, and any employer would consider that a hardship. So, you say it's not a hardship - it's seems lengthy to the point of ridiculousness to me. Let's see where the court goes with it.

If the duration was overly long, than there was no violation, and the school can and will argue that any requested time off - even the week - was (a) not required by the religion because it only requires attendance once in the person's life (if they are able) and reasonable accommodation doesn't mean that they get to go anytime and every time they wan, and (b) that even a week or 10 days poses an undue burden because of its effect on classroom education and the cost to the school district - among other things. They will likely also argue that if this is a required reasonable accommodation of religion then any religious person must be given time off for any religious observance, even one that is not mandatory, and that would pose an undue administrative burden.

And, if there is a constitutional violation found that violation would be of the 14th Amendment, which INCORPORATES the freedoms of and from religion. The First Amendment does not apply directly to the school district. How much do you want to bet that in the Justice Department pleadings in the case, they will state exactly that?

Now, if you want to explain how the meaning of your words are not different than before, feel free. It's obvious, though, that this whole "you changed my words" bull is just what I said it was - Bush League tactics.

[JimC]

GreyICE, this refers to your post in reply to CES which said:

Fuck you, no you didn't. If you're going to lie like this, then I have no fucking desire to talk to you. That's the behavior of low scum.

This constitutes a personal attack against another member. You are reminded that this is a breach of our rules.

[GreyICE]

And Coito, if you respond thusly, I'll laugh at you. Because SCOTUS has been clearer on this issue than any other in all of our nation's history - the Supreme Court does not hear cases where there is no provable, tangible evidence that someone was hurt. They will never, ever hear cases based on a hypothetical way in which a law might violate someone's constitutional rights, only actual cases where a law is claimed to violate someone's constitutional rights.

As for quoting part of a post, there's plenty of ways to quote people without altering the meaning of what they said. You chose none of them. That's dishonest as hell.

@Jim: I will be sure to sugar coat the truth better.

[Coito ergo sum]

And Coito, if you respond thusly, I'll laugh at you. Because SCOTUS has been clearer on this issue than any other in all of our nation's history - the Supreme Court does not hear cases where there is no provable, tangible evidence that someone was hurt. They will never, ever hear cases based on a hypothetical way in which a law might violate someone's constitutional rights, only actual cases where a law is claimed to violate someone's constitutional rights.

As for quoting part of a post, there's plenty of ways to quote people without altering the meaning of what they said. You chose none of them. That's dishonest as hell.

@Jim: I will be sure to sugar coat the truth better.

GreyICE, I don't know what more I can do about the posting format. I've posted and responded to your silliness twice now, and formatted the response exactly as you asked, yet you still dodge the question: what's the difference in meaning that you're claiming occurred between the two? Obviously, the answer is NONE, because you just used it as a dodge. You've been asked three times now to explain what the different meanings are - and you've refused to answer. It's now painfully obvious why that is.

As for what the Supreme Court has been clear on, I doubt you are in a position to comment since it's obvious you haven't read many Supreme Court opinions. To be so ignorant of a very basic consittutional principle involving how most of the Bill of Rights came to be applicable to the States and then to try to claim what the SCOTUS has been clearer on than anything else - that's rather laughable.

I never said that the SCOTUS would hear hypothetical cases. Where are you getting this? The SCOTUS hears cases and controversies.

However, the SCOTUS does not ONLY hear constitutional cases. It hears cases and controversies cognizable under the Constitution, OR cases involving a federal law question, OR cases involving litigants from different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (whether the issue is one of federal or state law), OR cases where Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.

The case involving this teacher does involve ALLEGATIONS that there have been violations of Title VII, and a violation of the 14th Amendment (incorporating the First Amendment as against the state of NY). However, just because the allegations are made doesn't make the allegations true. That's what litigation and trial will decide.

[GreyICE]

I've explained what the difference is. I just explained why your post was a strawman of me based on deceptive quoting. You changed the meaning to lie about me - you chose to represent it as if I believed that SCOTUS had already ruled on this case, and then you set your little strawman ablaze. Stop fucking saying something isn't explained to you when you're too dense to read the explanation. If you choose to stop the chainsaw with your genitals, well, the warning was in the fucking manual. On the subject of what is clear to you, I would assume based on past precedent that everything clear to you is probably completely wrong. Everything you have said is clear to you in this thread most certainly is.

There is very little question the allegations are true, based on what we know and the facts that both sides have presented. This allows us to draw conclusions, independent of waiting for the court system. The conclusions are that they violated, among other things, the 1st amendment (not the 14th).

[Coito ergo sum]

I've explained what the difference is. I just explained why your post was a strawman of me based on deceptive quoting. You changed the meaning to lie about me - you chose to represent it as if I believed that SCOTUS had already ruled on this case, and then you set your little strawman ablaze. Stop fucking saying something isn't explained to you when you're too dense to read the explanation. If you choose to stop the chainsaw with your genitals, well, the warning was in the fucking manual. On the subject of what is clear to you, I would assume based on past precedent that everything clear to you is probably completely wrong. Everything you have said is clear to you in this thread most certainly is.

There is very little question the allegations are true, based on what we know and the facts that both sides have presented. This allows us to draw conclusions, independent of waiting for the court system. The conclusions are that they violated, among other things, the 1st amendment (not the 14th).

You said that you agreed with SCOTUS - I merely correctly pointed out that SCOTUS hadn't ruled on this "issue" before. I never accused you of saying that the SCOTUS already ruled on this case. Since it's only at the trial level, I wouldn't suggest that SCOTUS had ruled on this case, or that you thought that.

I didn't "lie about you" and your griping and hand-wringing over this is becoming pathetic and tiresome.

You keep spouting pure nonsense like that everything I have said on this thread is completely wrong. You are full of it. You were completely wrong about the First and Fourteenth Amendment, and you're too much of a coward to admit it. I cited the cases, and provided other proof that I was right, and you were wrong. Stop with the crybaby tactics and just discuss the issue.

Based on what we know of the facts both sides have presented, there is nothing but questions about whether the allegations are true. To say that there is no question about the propriety or impropriety of the school denying her 3 weeks unpaid time off to go to the Hajj is just plain ludicrous. That is the whole dispute. The school most certainly denies it, as they haven't settled the case yet and appear to be defending it.

And, again with your idiocy about the 1st amendment. The only reason the 1st amendment is applicable to the states is because the 14th Amendment incorporates the first amendment free exercise and establishment clauses.

Also, the Justice Department's suit is not based on the 1st/14th Amendment. It's based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII. Here's a copy of the Complaint filed with the Northern District of Illinois: http://207.41.16.133/rfcViewFile/10cv7900.pdf - Note - conspicuously absent from the complaint is ANY allegation whatsoever that the First Amendment has been violated. So all your spewing about the First Amendment is so off base it's not even funny. First, you don't even know that constitutional suits against states and local governments, and school districts, are based on the 14th Amendment incorporating the particular right embodied in the bill of rights. You refuse to admit that, even though I've proven it to you.

Now, you compound your foolishness by all but claiming that it's undisputed that a First Amendment violation has occurred. Well, my friend, the Justice Department hasn't even alleged a First Amendment violation. Repeat. The Justice Department has not even alleged a First Amendment violation. Let that sink in. They are alleging - like I said above and in previous posts - a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

How can you speak with such presumptive certainty regarding things about which you are so patently uninformed? You claim that the constitutional violation is somehow hardly in question - when the DOJ hasn't even made the allegation a constitutional claim!

And, you want to claim that you know what "both sides have alleged" and you didn't even bother to read the DOJ Complaint!

Anyway, there was no reason why she had to go on the hajj at the particular time she requested. Since the Islamic calendar is a lunar one with a year of 355 days, the time to perform the hajj moves by ten days every year. All she had to do was wait until the time for the hajj fell during summer vacation, and then there would have been no problem. As I've previously noted, reasonable accommodation does not require the employer, or school in this case, to cave in to every employee demand. Moreover, as for hardship, the school year is only about nine months long. So she is essentially demanding to keep her job despite being away for nearly a tenth of the time during which the job is to be performed. That, combined with the disruption of the children's educations seems to me to be, at least arguably, undue hardship.

So, we have a woman who started working for the school district in November, of 2007. In August 2008, she's already asking for time off (having not yet even worked there for a year...). According to the Complaint, the school district denied the request because the requested leave was not related to her profession (i.e. - not a sabbatical), and that it was not for a reason allowed under the teacher's union collective bargaining agreement.

The DOJ has claimed that the School failed to grant reasonable accommodation. The School, obviously, has a chance to defend its actions and allege and show that the accommodation requested was not reasonable, and that the requested accommodation would pose an undue hardship. They can also take the position that the requested leave was not necessitated by the religion (the Hajj is not mandatory every year, and only needs to be taken, if a person is able, once in a lifetime - so, she could wait). The DOJ claims that the school compelled her to choose between her religious beliefs and her job. The School can easily take the position that it did not, in fact, do that.

in short, the school's answer or motion to dismiss is due, at present, on or about January 5, 2010 (unless they seek more time, which is not abnormal). We'll get some more insight into their side of the story when they file their answer or other responsive pleading/motion.

But, by all means...do go ahead and lecture me on what is and is not subject to "very little question..."

[GreyICE]

I didn't say that SCOTUS had ruled on the issue EITHER Coito!

READ THE PARAGRAPH.

[Coito ergo sum]

I didn't say that SCOTUS had ruled on the issue EITHER Coito!

READ THE PARAGRAPH.

Whatever. It's irrelevant what you think SCOTUS ruled on.

You said - "I agree with SCOTUS." -- What do you agree with SCOTUS about?

Naturally, of course, you just avoid everything of substance and continue to piss and moan about nonsense. Just state your case. If you think someone has got something wrong, just explain it without crying about it.

1. You were wrong about the intent of the framers. They did not intend to have the First Amendment would apply to the States. That's why Marshall (a founding father himself - fought in the revolution - friend of G. Washington - cousin of T. Jefferson) wrote a Supreme Court opinion stating EXACTLY THAT - the Bill of Rights applied only to limit federal action - 1833. Nothing changed along those lines until after the 14th Amendment was passed, because the 14th Amendment DOES apply to the States, and the SCOTUS used the 14th to "incorporate" the rights in the first amendment, and other rights embodied in the bill of rights (but not all), to be applicable to the states. This occurred mostly between about 1920 and 1964, and is known as the "incorporation doctrine." What about that do you claim is incorrect?

2. You were wrong about the Department of Justice case against the school denying the teacher unpaid leave to go on the Hajj. You said it was a First Amendment violation -- in fact, you said there was hardly any question that it was a First Amendment violation. This is just plain wrong because the DOJ didn't even bring a cause of action for violation of the First Amendment in the case! I gave you a copy of the Complaint that was filed in the Northern District of Illinois, and you just, of course, ignored it. Don't let the facts get in your way, right? But, you'll tell me where I'm wrong about this, won't you?

3. You seem to think there is hardly a question about the failure to accommodate. Am I right about that? Well, I explained to you that the school has a number of defenses, and those can include: (1) 3 weeks is not reasonable, (2) The Hajj is not a requirement of the religion that must be taken in 2008 in December - it can wait to another year, (3) taking 3 weeks off is an undue burden because of the cost and trouble the school has to go through to fill in for the teacher and because the students' education will be impaired by having their regular teacher gone for nearly 15 school days out of about 180, and (4) they aren't treating Islam any less favorably than other religions, (5) possibly, if the facts bear it out, this woman's religion was not a "sincerely held" belief, (6) an employer need not give the employee everything they ask just because they ask for it - the employer may accommodate the religious needs in other ways that meet the same goal - so the ability to take the pilgrimage in a future year may well be that alternative accommodation, (7) perhaps such a long leave infringes on other employees’ job rights or benefits because it makes other employees take up her slack, (8) if a collective bargaining agreement is in force which sets forth rules regarding seniority and assignments, it may be an undue hardship to ask the employer to violate that agreement (we don't know what the collective bargaining agreement in this case says, but this is certainly a possible defense). But, again - you can, anytime you're ready, explain how this isn't all true.

4. Lastly, we haven't yet heard the school's position. We've heard DOJ's position in a press release and some articles reporting on the press release, and we have DOJ's Complaint under ONLY Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

So ....you were saying?