IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTH., ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. NEW YORK,
EXECUTIVE DEP'T, DIV. OF HUMAN RIGHTS, RESPONDENT, AND MARY MYERS, APPELLANT.
89 N.Y.2d 79, 674 N.E.2d 305, 651 N.Y.S.2d 375 (1996).
October 22, 1996
(Case Commentary by Editorial Board)
1 No. 179 (1996 NY Int. 198)
Decided October 22, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Marc D. Stern, for Appellant.
Elaine A. Smith, for Respondent State Division.
Evelyn Jonas, for Respondent NYCTA.
David B. Rosen, for Respondent union.
TITONE, J.:
Our State's Human Rights Law prohibits employers from discriminating
against their employees because of their religiously-motivated Sabbath
observance (Executive Law § 296(10)(a)). Recognizing that there may be
circumstances in which the mandate of the statute conflicts with the
strictures of a collective bargaining agreement, we have previously
held that an employer caught in such a conflict is obligated only to
make a "good faith" effort to accommodate a Sabbath observing employee
(Matter of Schweizer Aircraft Corp. v State Div. of Human Right (48
NY2d 294, 299). The present appeal requires us to apply that principle
and to delineate some of the contours of what a "good faith" effort
is.
Respondent Mary Myers is a practicing Seventh Day Adventist. The
tenets of her religion forbid her from engaging in any form of work on
the Sabbath, which extends from sundown on Friday to sundown on
Saturday. In June of 1988, Myers was hired as a full-time bus operator
trainee by the New York City Transit Authority, which operates its
buses on a seven-day per week, twenty-four-hour per day basis. From
the outset, Myers made it clear to her supervisors that her religious
commitments would prevent her from working between sundown on Friday
and sundown on Saturday.
During her training period and the first week of her regular
employment, Myers' Sabbath observance presented little conflict with
the demands of her job. However, a problem arose shortly thereafter
SNIPPETS:
OF HUMAN RIGHTS, RESPONDENT, AND MARY MYERS, APPELLANT.
(Case Commentary by Editorial Board)
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Our State's Human Rights Law prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees
Recognizing that there may be circumstances in which the mandate of the statute conflicts
Respondent Mary Myers is a practicing Seventh Day Adventist.
In June of 1988, Myers was hired as a full-time bus operator trainee by the New York City
Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the Authority and the
At the hearing, a labor relations specialist for the Authority testified that the Authority
On the basis of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Human Rights Division concluded that
On transfer from the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division annulled the agency's order,
The employer claimed that it had declined to hire the complainant because his religious
In so ruling, the Court was careful to note that an employer is not obligated to assist a
The statute requires that employers must take all reasonable steps, short of those involving
Of Human Rights v Carnation Co., 42 NY2d 873, 875).
In contrast to this case involving an agency determination made after a full evidentiary
|
