being fired, for failing to comply with a work requirement that conflicts with his religious practice. See, e.g., Baker v. Home Depot, 445 F.3d 541, 546 (2d Cir. 2006); Cooper v. Oak Rubber Co., 15 F.3d 1375, 1379 n.1 (6th Cir. 1994). We do hot have to rule definitively on that issue, however, because in any event, Kellogg cannot now retract its concession in the. district court that, for purposes pf the summary-judgment motions, Tabura made a prima facie, claim. 6 . The EEOC also points to its' own compliance manual, which "states that an ’[ejmployer violates Title VII if it offers only a partial accommodation where full accommodation would not pose an undue hardship.’ ” (EEOC Br, 11 (quoting EEOC Compliance Manual § 12 (R v. Universal Mfg. Corp,, 914 F.2d 71, 73-74 (5th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). 9 . See Porter v. City of Chi., 700 F.3d 944,
holding employer did not reasonably accommodate employees reli gious practices where employer accommodated employees request to attend religious festival during scheduled work shift but did not address employees second religious practice of refraining from work during the week of the festival holding that a change in employer from one federal contractor to another caused employees no lack of work holding that the cba preempted an intentional infliction claim that was based on a failure to change an employees work schedule so he could attend friday religious services holding that employer is not vicariously hable for employees negligence while driving to work where such driving conferred no special benefit upon employer other than to make employees services available holding in an employees action to recover for injury sustained during work against the employer and other defendants did not state an intentional tort claim against contractor