Select a State * NATIONAL MAP * Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

• ISSUES
  • Budget & Taxes
  • Health & Safety
  • Health Care
  • Pension Security
  • Privatization
  • Women
• JOBS WE DO
  • Corrections
  • Early Childhood Education
  • Emergency Services
  • Environmental Stewardship
  • Health Care Workers
  • Higher Education
  • Home Care
  • Housing
  • Human Services
  • K-12 Schools
  • Law Enforcement
  • Library Workers
  • Nurses
  • Probation and Parole
  • Public Administration
  • Public Works
  • Transportation
• LEGISLATION & POLITICS
• MEMBERS ONLY
  Savings, Resources & Trainings
• PUBLICATIONS
  • Periodicals & Newsletters
  • AFSCME Governance
  • LeaderNet
  • Workplace Health & Safety
  • Life Management & Health
  • Retirement Life
  • Privatization
  • Working for Government
  • Health Care
  • Español
• PRESS ROOM
• ABOUT AFSCME

Recent Court Decisions (1998)

The Third Circuit recently ruled in Kralik v. Durbin that an employer cannot be required to violate a collective bargaining agreement’s seniority provisions because of a reasonable accommodation request under the American with Disabilities Act. In the case, Kralik worked as a toll collector for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. When she injured her back in a non-work related accident, she requested to be relieved from forced overtime, as her back injury prohibited her from working more than eight hours at a time. The employer refused to accommodate her, except on a temporary basis, and argued that it was not obligated to make the accommodation due to a seniority provision in a collective bargaining agreement it had with the Teamsters. The court agreed, noting that an exemption from forced overtime could require the commission to compel an employee with more seniority to work overtime, infringing on the employee’s seniority rights under the contract, and held that such an accommodation simply is not reasonable. The ruling in Kralik follows similar rulings in favor of collective bargaining agreements in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Circuits according to the National Employment Law Project.

On May 15, 1998 the U.S. District Court for Western Michigan ruled that the U.S. Department of Labor was within its rights when it withheld $15.7 million in Wagner-Peyser Act federal funds from the state of Michigan for violating the DOL’s requirement for merit staffing of state employment office operations. In the case, the state sued the DOL in order to force the department to resume payment of the federal funds. DOL suspended payments to the state in late December for operating without an approved state plan. In addition to the state’s violation of the merit staffing requirements, the department also had disapproved of the state’s plan because it was relying on an automated job bank supported through contracts with local workforce boards to provide Wagner-Peyser services and because it had failed to consult broadly with all stakeholders in designing its system. Merit staffing in the employment service program as well as in the unemployment insurance program ensures that the programs are administered by public employees and has been an integral part of each program’s administrative structure for over 60 years. It was established as a way to protect the programs from political abuses. Had the decision in Michigan gone in favor of Michigan, other states would have moved to dismantle their state offices as well.

Print Version Email This Page

What's This?