> Are you saving it for later? (I joke, but your "common sense" assertion seems like a total non-sequitur to me.)
Hilarious.
> He told them, it's right there in the lawsuit.
No, he told them after they attempted to contact him. That's not requesting in advance.
> He had the day off to begin with
Clearly he didn't. Even he says all this managers employees were emailed with the expectation they'd be available via email on weekends. That's horrible and a place I'd never work. But that's not illegal.
> Normally you don't have to work during "time off".
It's not "time off" if they obligate people to be available. It's permanent on-call.
> The company is liable because they fired him rather than make reasonable accommodations as required by law.
And their argument is going to be he didn't request reasonable accommodations because they weren't requested in a reasonable time frame. If he had a request a week in advance this wouldn't even be conversation.
Hilarious.
> He told them, it's right there in the lawsuit.
No, he told them after they attempted to contact him. That's not requesting in advance.
> He had the day off to begin with
Clearly he didn't. Even he says all this managers employees were emailed with the expectation they'd be available via email on weekends. That's horrible and a place I'd never work. But that's not illegal.
> Normally you don't have to work during "time off".
It's not "time off" if they obligate people to be available. It's permanent on-call.
> The company is liable because they fired him rather than make reasonable accommodations as required by law.
And their argument is going to be he didn't request reasonable accommodations because they weren't requested in a reasonable time frame. If he had a request a week in advance this wouldn't even be conversation.