Kalitta Air discrimination lawsuit!
02-07-2023, 01:28 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 401
They fired a bunch of guys that refused to take the Covid vax and refuses to hire them back. I think they’re the only airline that hasn’t hired those guys back.
Surprising, though, as much as they tout “family first.”
Most of those guys have moved on to bigger and better, though, so good on them.
Surprising, though, as much as they tout “family first.”
Most of those guys have moved on to bigger and better, though, so good on them.
02-15-2023, 02:27 AM
#55
On Reserve
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 22
I doubt that management even knows this yet, because they are so busy training new pilots, but the "undue burden" argument they raised as a shield -- taken from Hardison v. TWA https://casetext.com/case/trans-worl...inc-v-hardison -- is finally going to be revisited by the Supreme Court. Not that their argument would have succeeded anyway because there was never a burden to accommodate those they fired for being unvaccinated, and certainly no violation of seniority as they argued to the court (the irony that a CBA with no work rules is a two-bladed sword). Things just keep getting worse for these people.
___Jan 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal by an evangelical Christian former mail carrier in Pennsylvania who accused the U.S. Postal Service of religious bias after being reprimanded for refusing to deliver packages on Sundays.
The justices took up Gerald Groff's case after lower courts dismissed his claim that the Postal Service violated federal anti-discrimination law by refusing to exempt him from working on Sundays, when he observes the Sabbath, finding that his demands placed too much hardship on his co-workers and employer.
The case gives the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, another opportunity to back a plaintiff who has made a claim of anti-religion discrimination. The case is expected to be argued in the coming months and decided by the end of June.
Groff's job as a "rural carrier associate" in Holtwood, Pennsylvania required him to fill in as needed for absent career carriers. But Groff repeatedly did not show up for Sunday shifts assigned as part of the Postal Service's contract to deliver Amazon.com packages. Postal officials sought to accommodate Groff by attempting to facilitate Sunday shift swaps, but the effort was not always successful.
His absences caused resentment among others carriers who had to cover his shifts and ultimately led one to leave the Holtwood station and another to quit the Postal Service altogether, according to court papers. Groff received several disciplinary letters for his attendance and resigned in 2019.
The case tests the allowances companies must make for employees for religious reasons to comply with a federal anti-discrimination law called Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
Under the law, employers must reasonably accommodate a worker's religious observance or practices unless that would cause the business "undue hardship" - which the Supreme Court in a 1977 case called Trans World Airlines v. Hardison determined to be anything that imposes more than a minor, or "de minimis," cost.
In similar cases over the past three years that the court has turned away, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have cast doubt on the 1977 ruling.
The Supreme Court has taken an expansive view of religious liberties in a number of important cases in recent years. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court last year further reduced the separation of church and state in a ruling endorsing more public funding of religious entities in a case involving two Christian families who challenged a Maine tuition assistance program that excluded private religious schools.
Groff sued the Postal Service in 2019. The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year threw out the case, finding that exempting Groff caused "undue hardship" because it strained co-workers and disrupted workflow.
Groff's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to take up the case and revisit the 1977 ruling, under which courts "virtually always side with employers whenever an accommodation would impose any burden."
First Liberty Institute, a conservative religious rights legal organization, is part of Groff's legal team in the case.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-sup...ce-2023-01-13/
___Jan 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal by an evangelical Christian former mail carrier in Pennsylvania who accused the U.S. Postal Service of religious bias after being reprimanded for refusing to deliver packages on Sundays.
The justices took up Gerald Groff's case after lower courts dismissed his claim that the Postal Service violated federal anti-discrimination law by refusing to exempt him from working on Sundays, when he observes the Sabbath, finding that his demands placed too much hardship on his co-workers and employer.
The case gives the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, another opportunity to back a plaintiff who has made a claim of anti-religion discrimination. The case is expected to be argued in the coming months and decided by the end of June.
Groff's job as a "rural carrier associate" in Holtwood, Pennsylvania required him to fill in as needed for absent career carriers. But Groff repeatedly did not show up for Sunday shifts assigned as part of the Postal Service's contract to deliver Amazon.com packages. Postal officials sought to accommodate Groff by attempting to facilitate Sunday shift swaps, but the effort was not always successful.
His absences caused resentment among others carriers who had to cover his shifts and ultimately led one to leave the Holtwood station and another to quit the Postal Service altogether, according to court papers. Groff received several disciplinary letters for his attendance and resigned in 2019.
The case tests the allowances companies must make for employees for religious reasons to comply with a federal anti-discrimination law called Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
Under the law, employers must reasonably accommodate a worker's religious observance or practices unless that would cause the business "undue hardship" - which the Supreme Court in a 1977 case called Trans World Airlines v. Hardison determined to be anything that imposes more than a minor, or "de minimis," cost.
In similar cases over the past three years that the court has turned away, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch have cast doubt on the 1977 ruling.
The Supreme Court has taken an expansive view of religious liberties in a number of important cases in recent years. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court last year further reduced the separation of church and state in a ruling endorsing more public funding of religious entities in a case involving two Christian families who challenged a Maine tuition assistance program that excluded private religious schools.
Groff sued the Postal Service in 2019. The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year threw out the case, finding that exempting Groff caused "undue hardship" because it strained co-workers and disrupted workflow.
Groff's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to take up the case and revisit the 1977 ruling, under which courts "virtually always side with employers whenever an accommodation would impose any burden."
First Liberty Institute, a conservative religious rights legal organization, is part of Groff's legal team in the case.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-sup...ce-2023-01-13/
02-16-2023, 06:21 AM
#57
VHR-very happily retired
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,424
I was initially surprised that management did not offer a settlement early on, to the named parties. But then I heard how acrimonious the new managers have become. One in particular, totally shocked me as I am a good judge of character. Those two remind me so much of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
Hopefully the present management will continue down this path and that that path leads to both their demise and a large lifetime compensation for now all of those adversely effected by this travesty.
Hopefully the present management will continue down this path and that that path leads to both their demise and a large lifetime compensation for now all of those adversely effected by this travesty.
03-05-2023, 01:37 AM
#58
On Reserve
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 22
Below is the amicus brief filed by the lead attorney for employees and former employees of United, Kalitta Air and Hawaiian, regarding the pending U.S. Supreme Court case discussed above. Oral argument is set for April 18, 2023, but that could change.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...%20Freedom.pdf
For those who wish to follow the case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/22-174.html
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...%20Freedom.pdf
For those who wish to follow the case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/22-174.html
04-15-2023, 02:06 AM
#59
On Reserve
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 22
Lawsuit Update
Six weeks ago, the court gave Kalitta an opportunity to supplement their evidence to explain how accommodating unvaccinated pilots would somehow implicate the CBA or violate seniority. Kalitta's main argument is that its CBA has a “seniority-based bid assignment system” that would be affected by allowing unvaccinated pilots to fly select schedules. But they fail to mention what every Kalitta pilot deals with every month: Once the bids are made by seniority, the company then shuffles pilot schedules around at will without violating the CBA. Apparently Kalitta had nothing more to offer on this issue, so three weeks ago they waived their right to supplement their argument. They must have a lot to hide. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vjd...ew?usp=sharing
Now it's the pilots' turn to ask the court for discovery, including taking depositions of certain managers. Some of the questions are included in the affidavit. The pilots' motion and affidavit were just filed 4/14/23.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GU6...ew?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HX3...ew?usp=sharing
Now it's the pilots' turn to ask the court for discovery, including taking depositions of certain managers. Some of the questions are included in the affidavit. The pilots' motion and affidavit were just filed 4/14/23.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GU6...ew?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HX3...ew?usp=sharing
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
