In 2007, Oregon enacted a law providing legal recognition to same-sex relationships as domestic partnerships. An employee in a county clerk’s office asked to be excused from having to register same-sex couples because of her religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. The county clerk initially said that it would not be a problem, provided that another clerk was available at the time to register same-sex couples. But a day later, the county clerk changed her mind and said that the woman must perform the registrations. Without further discussion of her proposed accommodation, the woman was informed that it would be an undue hardship to exempt her from this job requirement. The county offered to discuss a transfer to any other positions that might arise. However, no positions were available at the time and none were ever offered. Shortly thereafter, the woman was terminated when she refused to initial a memo affirming that she would perform the disputed registrations. In the two years following her departure, there were thirty-seven same-sex domestic partner registrations. Twenty-six of these registrations were processed by two clerks, while the remaining eleven registrations were processed by three other clerks. Did the county fail to reasonably accommodate this employee? Why or why not?