Union Gets Mixed Results in Port Authority Medical Exam Suit
U.S. District Judge William Pauley III of the Southern District of New York delivered a mixed ruling over dueling summary judgment motions Tuesday, agreeing in part with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's police officers union's argument that mandatory medical examinations were against federal law, while leaving in place a portion of the authority's policy.
October 24, 2017 at 06:32 PM
5 minute read
Judge William Pauley.
U.S. District Judge William Pauley III of the Southern District of New York delivered a mixed ruling over dueling summary judgment motions Tuesday, agreeing in part with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey's police officers union's argument that mandatory medical examinations were against federal law, while leaving in place a portion of the authority's policy.
Pauley said he “recognizes the wisdom” of officers undergoing regular medical screenings “to ensure they can protect the public,” but privacy interests under the Americans with Disabilities Act meant that the Port Authority dictate that only those tests that represent a “business necessity” are permitted.
Accordingly, Pauley ruled in favor of the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association Inc., nixing compulsory annual medical examinations, as well as sick leave fitness-for-duty examinations. On both accounts, the authority failed to show a reasonable basis for why a blanket examination, regardless of officer rank or work duties, was necessary, Pauley said.
“Lumping all police officers together without regard to whether their assignments implicate public safety does not forge a class consistent with that business necessity,” he wrote.
However, the judge found the Port Authority's on-the-job injury examinations pass muster, as “these examinations actually contribute to the Port Authority's authorization of medical treatment by allowing it to ascertain the officer's eligibility for workers' compensation without being broader than necessary to diagnose the condition.”
A spokesman for the Port Authority declined to comment.
In his conclusion, Pauley took the opportunity to “express skepticism” with the union's motivation for dismantling a portion of their members' fought-for health care benefits: their collective bargaining agreement requires the Port Authority to pay the full premium costs of their health care insurance.
“This irony is particularly stark given the current health care debate in the United States and the worries of many Americans about whether their medical needs will be met,” Pauley said. “Until today, not only did Port Authority police officers have free medical care, they received a day's pay for submitting to an annual medical examination. This court wonders how many Americans would welcome such a generous arrangement.”
Reached by phone, counsel for the union, Lenzo & Reis name attorney Christopher Lenzo, said he and the PAPBA were “pleased that Judge Pauley applied the law as it's written and arrived at a result that may be, in some quarters, unpopular but which is the right results legally and from a public policy perspective.”
Judge William Pauley.
U.S. District Judge William Pauley III of the Southern District of
Pauley said he “recognizes the wisdom” of officers undergoing regular medical screenings “to ensure they can protect the public,” but privacy interests under the Americans with Disabilities Act meant that the Port Authority dictate that only those tests that represent a “business necessity” are permitted.
Accordingly, Pauley ruled in favor of the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association Inc., nixing compulsory annual medical examinations, as well as sick leave fitness-for-duty examinations. On both accounts, the authority failed to show a reasonable basis for why a blanket examination, regardless of officer rank or work duties, was necessary, Pauley said.
“Lumping all police officers together without regard to whether their assignments implicate public safety does not forge a class consistent with that business necessity,” he wrote.
However, the judge found the Port Authority's on-the-job injury examinations pass muster, as “these examinations actually contribute to the Port Authority's authorization of medical treatment by allowing it to ascertain the officer's eligibility for workers' compensation without being broader than necessary to diagnose the condition.”
A spokesman for the Port Authority declined to comment.
In his conclusion, Pauley took the opportunity to “express skepticism” with the union's motivation for dismantling a portion of their members' fought-for health care benefits: their collective bargaining agreement requires the Port Authority to pay the full premium costs of their health care insurance.
“This irony is particularly stark given the current health care debate in the United States and the worries of many Americans about whether their medical needs will be met,” Pauley said. “Until today, not only did Port Authority police officers have free medical care, they received a day's pay for submitting to an annual medical examination. This court wonders how many Americans would welcome such a generous arrangement.”
Reached by phone, counsel for the union, Lenzo & Reis name attorney Christopher Lenzo, said he and the PAPBA were “pleased that Judge Pauley applied the law as it's written and arrived at a result that may be, in some quarters, unpopular but which is the right results legally and from a public policy perspective.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEuropean, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250