that casual driv rump any employee leave policies or “refusal to ride” practices that on occasion allow drivers to be skipped over for various secular reasons. First, skipping over Weber constitutes more than a de minimis expense because this unduly burdens his co-workers, with respect to compensation and “time-off’ concerns. As the district court found, skipping over Weber to avoid pairing with a female driver may adversely affect other drivers. For example, the run Weber passes up might lead his substitute to accept a shorter run than she might otherwise, which provides less compensation and is therefore less valuable. Weber’s substitute might also receive less rest and time off between runs than he or she might otherwise. See Cook v. Chrysler Corp., 981 F.2d 336, 338 (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The mere possibility of an adverse impact on
holding that defendant failed to meet second part of duren test when he did not even allege the proportion of jurors who were actually excused for economic hardship holding that rule 60b6 may be used to grant relief in case of extreme and undue hardship holding that hardship need not be quantifiable in economic terms holding that citys policy need not be unconstitutional per se but need only cause a constitutional violation holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision