had done all that was reasonably required under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 once it had encouraged the employee to try to find another employee to swap shifts with him so that he could avoid working on Saturdays in violation of his religious beliefs. We held that it would have been unreasonable to require the employer to go further and attempt to arrange a schedule swap for the plaintiff. We recognized the interactive and reciprocal duties inherent in a reasonableness analysis, and concluded that the employer had done all that was reasonably required of it when it was amenable to, and receptive to, efforts that the employee could have conducted for himself to arrange his own schedule swap. We believe the holding of that case is controlling here. See also Pyro Mining Co., 827 F.2d at 1088 (<HOLDING>); Lee, 22 F.3d at 1022-23 (“The defendant’s
holding that so long as the plaintiff had no religious constraints against arranging his own schedule swap with other employees it would be a sufficient reasonable accommodation for the employer simply to be amenable to such a swap without requiring the employer itself actively to solicit other employees to make such a swap holding unconscionable an arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims against the employer but not requiring the employer to arbitrate claims against the employees 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 that an employer does not have thirdparty standing to challenge a labor statute on its employees behalf simply because the employees probably would not be motivated to assert their own interests because they lack a sufficient individual economic stake in the outcome holding that a section 8a3 violation is sufficient to find that the new employer would have employed a sufficient number of predecessor employees to be a successor employer had it acted lawfully