Newark Airport Worker's Appeal Fails in Case Over Working on Jewish Sabbath
The plaintiff argued that the Port Authority's voluntary swap policy is not a reasonable accommodation because the Port Authority did not do anything to facilitate the swaps. "The record belies Miller's claims," the Third Circuit said.
October 11, 2019 at 05:32 PM
3 minute read
A federal appellate court has rejected the appeal of a civil rights case filed by a former Port Authority worker who claimed religious discrimination because he was required to work on the Jewish Sabbath.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Miller v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey upheld a New Jersey federal judge's ruling that the accommodation of the schedule plaintiff Gary Miller requested would violate his union's collective bargaining agreement.
As a unionized utility systems maintenance worker at Newark Liberty International Airport, 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.
Miller argued that the Port Authority didn't make a good-faith effort to find a reasonable accommodation for him.
But 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, Third Circuit Judge Julio Fuentes wrote in the court's opinion, noting that Miller did use personal days for religious purposes on several different occasions in January and February 2015.
"First, the Port Authority made a good-faith effort to reasonably accommodate Miller's religious practices by allowing him to use paid time off … and to utilize voluntary mutual swaps with other utility service maintainers without restrictions," Fuentes said. "While Miller argues that he was not told he could use vacation time, the Port Authority submitted evidence showing that he was entitled to, and allowed to, take ten days of vacation time."
Miller argued that the Port Authority's voluntary swap policy is not a reasonable accommodation because the Port Authority did not do anything to facilitate the swaps, according to Fuentes.
"The record belies Miller's claims," Fuentes said.
Miller's supervisor "made a public announcement to other utility service maintainers that Miller would be looking for voluntary, mutual swaps and encouraged them to consider his request. Further, the Port Authority informed Miller that the schedule of all utility service maintainers would be made available to him and that a list of all Unit 329 staff with their personal telephone numbers could be found in the 'Watch Engineers Office' at [the airport]. Miller's dissatisfaction with the Port Authority's efforts to facilitate mutual swaps does not create a genuine dispute as to whether the accommodation was reasonable."
Cheryl Alterman, an in-house attorney for the Port Authority who handled the case, did not respond to a request for comment.
David Zatuchni, a Lambertville attorney who represents Miller, also did not respond to a request 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 All$945K Settlement Reached in Fatal Crash After Truck Driver Fell Asleep at Wheel
3 minute read'That's Insane': Lawyers Weigh In on Fallout From Uber's User Agreement
7 minute readNY's Top Court Mulls Fate of Personal Injury Claims Against NJ Transit Corp.
Class Action Claims Charter Bus Company Conducted Mass Layoff in Violation State, Federal WARN Acts
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Commentary: James Madicon, Meet Matt Gaetz
- 2The Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
- 3Leopard Solutions Launches AI Navigator, a Gen AI Search, Data Extraction Tool
- 4Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
- 5Special Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
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