Schwartzberg v. Mellon Bank, N.A.

4 Citing cases

  1. Kaite v. Altoona Student Transp., Inc.

    296 F. Supp. 3d 736 (W.D. Pa. 2017)   Cited 7 times
    Analyzing failure to accommodate claim as separate from retaliation claims

    "If the employer satisfies its relatively low burden, the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employer's articulated reasons were a pretext for discrimination." Sowell v. RAV Investigative & Sec. Servs., Ltd. , No. CV 15-03657, 2016 WL 3014881, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (citing Schwartzberg v. Mellon Bank, N.A., No. 06-1006, 2008 WL 111984, at *8 (W.D. Pa. 2008), aff'd, 307 Fed.Appx. 676 (3d Cir. 2009) ). "An accommodation constitutes an ‘undue hardship’ if it would impose more than a de minimis cost on the employer."

  2. Sowell v. Rav Investigative & Sec. Servs., Ltd.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-03657 (E.D. Pa. May. 26, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    If the employer satisfies its relatively low burden, the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employer's articulated reasons were a pretext for discrimination. See Schwartzberg v. Mellon Bank, N.A., No. 06-1006, 2008 WL 111984, at *8 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2008), aff'd, 307 F. App'x 676 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 522 (3d Cir. 1992)). Sowell's complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish that RAV discriminated against him because of his religious beliefs and failed to accommodate his religious beliefs in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.

  3. Mathis v. Christian Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.

    158 F. Supp. 3d 317 (E.D. Pa. 2016)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff was constructively discharged when given a "choice between continuing to work under conditions that offended plaintiff's beliefs or ending his employment"

    Id. at 41:12-19, 84:23-85:3; Smith Dep. at 9:8-10:24.A reasonable trier of fact could conclude that a statement that references “the Lord” and “standards that are higher than man's own” conflicts with the views of an individual “who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God.” Cf.Schwartzberg v. Mellon Bank, N.A. , No. 02 Civ. 1006, 2008 WL 111984, at *9–10 (W.D.Pa. Jan. 8, 2008) aff'd, 307 Fed.Appx. 676 (3d Cir.2009) (granting summary judgment for employer because employee had no evidence that his religious “belief that members of the same sex should not engage in sexual relations with each other” conflicted with employer's sponsored activities promoting tolerance for homosexuality because plaintiff's participation in those activities was “strictly voluntary”). Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has adduced sufficient evidence to present a genuine dispute of material fact concerning the first element of his failure to accommodate claim.

  4. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. ALDI

    Civil Action No. 06-01210 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 30, 2009)

    Id. However, the Court does not agree with Plaintiffs' contention that Aldi's affirmative defense of reasonable accommodation fails as a matter of law because Aldi did not explicitly re-offer the option of swapping Sunday shifts to Bloom after she requested an accommodation, but rather relied on its pre-existing policy of allowing employees to swap shifts. See also Schwartzberg v. Mellon Bank, N.A., Civ. A. No. 06-1006, 2008 WL 111984 (W.D.Pa. 2008), aff'd 307 Fed. Appx. 676 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Philbrook and providing that "[a]ny reasonable accommodation is sufficient to meet an employer's obligation under Title VII, as long as it `eliminates the conflict between employment requirements and religious practices.'"). Numerous courts have interpreted Philbrook as requiring that a proposed accommodation eliminate the conflict, however the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not expressly held as much. See Morrisette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Medical Center, 506 F.3d 1317, 1322 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Philbrook and providing that "the Supreme Court has explained that a reasonable accommodation is one that `eliminates the conflict between employment requirements and religious practices'") (citation omitted); Baker v. Home Depot, 445 F.3d 541, 548 (2d Cir. 2006); Cosme v. Henderson, 287 F.3d 152, 159 (2d Cir. 2002) (reviewing the purported accommodations and providing that "[f]or any of these offers to have been reasonable within the meaning of § 701(j