do not have a contractual right to be called for any specific run. Roadway argues that the district court properly granted summary judgment because “skipping over” Weber when paired with a woman driver to allow another driver to take the run is beyond the requirements of Title VII. Roadway relies on several cases to support its position that an employer is not required to rearrange its schedule and force employees to “trade shifts” to accommodate the religious practices of an employee. Roadway maintains that in Brener and Eversley, this court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hardison when it held that forcing “trade shifts” to accommodate religious practices was not required by Title VII. Roadway further relies on Lee v. ABF Freight System, Inc., 22 F.3d 1019 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Roadway also asserts that business exigencies
holding governments position unreasonable where government advanced no legal authority for its position and applicable principle of law was long settled holding that an eightmonth delay without excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law holding that an over twoyear delay without any excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law holding that a plaintiffs voluntary dismissal of his claims with prejudice constituted a final order that was appealable holding that the plaintiffs voluntary runaround proposal of skipping over his position on the drivers dispatch board was unreasonable as a matter of law