has been permitted to use the “Blessed Day” phrase with coworkers, to hang objects containing various religious phrases in her work area, to read the Bible on her work break and to listen to a religiously oriented radio station at her work station. Thus, despite the language of the company policy, the district court held that Anderson was reasonably accommodated in practice. This accommodation was sufficient to satisfy the company’s obligations under Title VII. We agree. The fact that the company policy, as stated, would not reasonably accommodate her religious practice is not controlling. In many cases, a company must modify its stated policies in practice to reasonably accommodate a religious practice. Cf. Minkus v. Metro. Sanitary Dist. of Greater Chicago, 600 F.2d 80 (7th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). In this case, U.S.F. disregarded its stated
holding that the municipal employer failed to accommodate a jewish applicant when it followed its stated policy and scheduled civil service examinations only on saturdays holding that an employer need not accommodate with indefinite leave an employee who is unable to return to work in any role holding that a failure to accommodate claim is separate and distinct from a claim of discriminatory treatment under the ada and pointing out that a failure to accommodate claim and a claim of discriminatory treatment under the ada are not like or reasonably related to one another and one cannot expect a failure to accommodate claim to develop from an investigation into a claim that an employee was terminated because of a disability holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand holding that when an employer takes steps to accommodate an employees restrictions it is not thereby conceding that the employee is disabled under the ada or that it regards the employee as disabled