Court Rejects Port Authority Worker's Suit Over Working on Jewish Sabbath
“On this record, the religious accommodation offered by the Port Authority was reasonable. And because the blanket exemption proposed by Miller would have imposed more than a de minimis hardship, the employer was not required to accept it,” Judge Kevin McNulty wrote.
November 16, 2018 at 06:09 PM
3 minute read
A New Jersey federal judge has rejected a civil rights claim filed by a former Port Authority worker who claimed religious discrimination because he was required to work on the Jewish Sabbath, reasoning that accommodating the schedule would violate his union's collective bargaining agreement.
According to the Nov. 13 decision in Miller v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, the civil rights case was filed by Gary Miller, who worked for less than three months as a Port Authority of New York and New Jersey employee at Newark Liberty Airport in 2015.
After his termination, Miller sued the Port Authority, claiming religious discrimination and failure to accommodate his religious beliefs in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
As a unionized utility systems maintenance worker, Miller was held to a neutral rotational schedule and was sometimes required to work at times that conflicted with his observance of the Jewish Sabbath, which prohibits work from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday.
A few days after starting his new position, Miller requested that he not be required to work shifts that conflicted with the Sabbath and Jewish holidays. Miller claimed his request for an accommodation was rejected, but he did not recall whether anyone from the Port Authority ever spoke to him about his options to use various forms of leave on days of religious obligation, according to the decision.
However, the Port Authority provided evidence that Miller was offered the option to swap shifts with other employees and was told that he could use vacation, personal excused time, or compensatory time, the decision said, noting that Miller did use personal excused time for religious purposes on seven different occasions in January and February 2015.
That March, Miller submitted three separate requests for unpaid leave, which were rejected because he had exhausted his personal excused time. When he failed to report to work, he was marked absent without leave and was subsequently terminated, the court said.
Miller alleged the Port Authority's accommodation was not reasonable and that they could have simply altered the rotation schedule by not scheduling him on Friday evenings or Saturdays.
The Port Authority moved to dismiss Miller's claims on summary judgment, which U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty of the District of New Jersey granted after concluding that Miller's accommodation request would have violated the union's collective bargaining agreement.
The employees in Miller's unit are unionized and as a result, the Port Authority is bound by a collective bargaining agreement. Creating a permanent shift schedule for Miller exempting him from working on the Sabbath or the Jewish holidays without first offering that option to more senior employees would have violated the agreement's seniority provision, McNulty reasoned in his decision.
“In short, Miller's preferred accommodation would have placed Port Authority in violation of its collective bargaining agreement and required other, more senior employees to work less desirable additional Friday evening and Saturday shifts,” McNulty wrote.
“On this record, the religious accommodation offered by the Port Authority was reasonable. And because the blanket exemption proposed by Miller would have imposed more than a de minimis hardship, the employer was not required to accept it,” McNulty wrote.
Cheryl Alterman, an in-house attorney for the Port Authority who handled the case, declined to comment.
David Zatuchni, a Lambertville attorney who represents Miller, did not return a call for comment.
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 AllHagens Berman Accused of Withholding Share of $13M Award in Pharmaceutical Settlement
Unanswered Questions on Remote Work Complicate NJ Wage Transparency Law, Litigators Say
4 minute read'Go 12 Rounds' or Settle: Rear-End Collision Leads to $2.25M Presuit Settlement
Trending Stories
- 1The Pusillanimous Press
- 2Contract Lifecycle Management Company ContractPodAi Unveils Leah Drive
- 3'Great News' for Businesses? Judge Halts Transparency Mandate
- 4Consilio Announces ‘Native AI Review,’ Expanding Its Gen AI E-Discovery Offerings
- 5Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
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