Peter James HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAVERTY FURNITURE COMPANIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the fact that an employer incurred “no direct money cost” was “not controlling” because “lost efficiency in other jobs” during a single-day absence “[was] more than de minimis” (quotations omitted)
• explaining that the fact that an employer incurred “no direct money cost” was “not controlling” because “lost efficiency in other jobs” during a single-day absence “[was] more than de minimis” (quotations omitted)
• affirming district court’s finding of undue hardship where the evidence showed that “[s]upervisory personnel were required to perform [the] plaintiff’s job to the detriment of their regular duties”
• finding undue hardship despite “[t]he fact that Haverty incurred no direct money cost from plaintiff’s absence,” because Haverty believed in good faith that the plaintiff’s absence would disrupt warehouse operations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).