conduct of the employer’s business. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). Although the amendment was enacted after Brown’s termination, an EEOC guideline containing substantively equivalent language was promulgated in 1967. Thus, the guideline has been accepted as a reasonable construction of the pre-1972 statute. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 76 n. 11, 97 S.Ct. 2264, 53 L.Ed.2d 113 (1977). 2 . There is no question that General Motors did attempt to initially accommodate Brown by attempting to get the union to waive the provisions of the Shift Preference Agreement to allow Brown to be assigned back to the first shift out of the line with his seniority. The Union refused to waive thé agreement. Cf. Huston v. Local No. 93, International Union, UAW, 559 F.2d 477 (8th Cir. 1977) (<HOLDING>). The result of the refusal of the union to so
holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original holding no violation of title vii by the union in refusing to alter its seniority lists to accommodate a sabbatarian holding that title vii does not include a continuing violation doctrine holding that an agreedupon seniority system did not give way to an employers duty to reasonably accommodate religious observance under title vii holding that there is no individual liability under title vii