Jewish Law
Case Summaries
    -- Sabbath

1. Schnapp v. Lefkowitz
   
   422 NYS2d 798, 101 Misc2d 1075 (S.Ct. N.Y. County, 1979)
   • "Pooper Scooper Law" does not violate religious freedom despite fact that Orthodox Jews may not pick up litter on Sabbath.

2. In Re: Anchor Motor Freight Inc.
   
   119 A.D. 2d 672, 500 N.Y.S. 2d 800 (Second Dept. 1986)
   • Court upheld finding by NYS Division of Human Rights that Defendant had violated an executive law regarding employee's Sabbath observance.

3. Wachtel v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
   
   141 Misc. 2d 665, 534 N.Y.S. 2d 72 (Nassau County 1988)
   • Insurance company must pay for manual wheelchair for Sabbath observant woman. Policy term "medically necessary" is ambiguous and Defendant cannot prove it isn't medically necessary.

4. Smith v. Board of Education, North Babylon Union Free School District
   
   844 F. 2d 90 (2nd Cir. 1988)
   • Orthodox Jewish student sued to keep school from scheduling his High School graduation on Saturday. Held, not a violation of his free exercise of religion as long as attending graduation isn't a pre-requisite for getting a diploma.

5. Whitney v. Brown
   
   882 F. 2d 1068 (Sixth Cir. 1989)
   • Prison policy prohibiting Jewish inmates from inter-complex travel to Sabbath services was unconstitutional

6. Fine v. Commissioner of Department of Consumer Affairs of the City of New York
   
   168 A.D. 2d 285, 562 N.Y.S. 2d 511 (First Dept. 1990)
   • Court dismissed suit of a Sabbath observant process server; held, employee was not being forced to observe the Sunday Sabbath and was were not being forced to work on a Saturday Sabbath.

7. Ackerman v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. AAMTRAK@
   
   772 F. Supp 579 (S.D.Fla. 1990)
   • AMTRAK tried to make reasonable accommodations but its hands were tied due to their collective bargaining agreements and the seniority of other employees. In addition, Plaintiff hid from AMTRAK in all his interviews that he was Sabbath observant and made employer feel that he could do the job even though it required availability 365 days per year.

8. Greenfield v. City of Miami Beach, Florida
   
   844 F. Supp 1519 (S.D.Fla 1992)
   • No prima facie case of discrimination; Complaint dismissed.

9. Heller v. Ebb Auto Co.
   
   8 F. 3d 1433 (9th Cir. 1993)
   • Where Employer did not reasonably accommodate employee's need to attend conversion ceremony for wife and children, which the court compared to need to accommodate Sabbath observance, held, there was religious discrimination.

10. Sable v. Stickney
    
    1993 WL 267337 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
    • No discrimination found where employee's supervisor had attempted accommodation and where he had fired four other non-Jews.

11. Shapiro-Gordon v. MCI Telecommunications Co.
    
    810 F. Supp 574 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
    Prev Hist: 791 F. Supp 431 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)
    • No evidence that Plaintiff was not hired due to Sabbath observance; Plaintiff voluntarily declined the accommodation offer.

12. Siegel v. Blair Hall, Inc.
    
    207 A.D. 2d 539, 615 N.Y.S. 2d 937 (Second Dept. 1994)
    • Ct held that although electric locks installed in a residential apartment building burdened Observant residents it did not violate their civil rights because they were installed to deter crime and not to discriminate.

13. Moscowitz v. Brown
    
    850 F. Supp 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
    • Summary judgment granted Defendant; official policy of NYC Police is to recruit and accommodate the Sabbath observant;

14. Luxemburg v. Texas A & M University System
    
    863 F. Supp 412 (S.D.Tex. 1994)
    • Plaintiff did not prove prima facie case; summary judgment granted for Defendant.

15. Fruchter v. Sussei
    
    1996 WL 640896 (S.D.N.Y.) Prev Hist: 1995 WL 274457 (S.D.N.Y.)
    • Defendant's motion to dismiss/summary judgement denied because there were issues of material fact regarding claims of religious discrimination to decide particularly with regard to Sabbath observance.

16. Adelman v. Dunmire
    
    1997 WL 164240 (E.D. Pa.) previous history: 1996 WL 914743 (E.D.Pa.)
    • Motion to dismiss order in divorce hearing based on ADA and Sabbath claim on whether ct. accommodated P. On appeal, held that it was not material to case so not reviewable.