Philip J. Degnan and Kandace R. Brackins of MOODK’s New Jersey office obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice against their client, a snow removal company.  Plaintiff alleged that the snow removal company negligently failed to treat ice during a snowstorm causing her to slip and fall. Despite a gallant effort to establish liability through multiple rounds of depositions, Plaintiff did not prevail.  As a result of strong motion practice and oral arguments, MOODK attorneys successfully argued, pursuant to New Jersey’s Ongoing Storm Rule, that no duty existed to remove snow or treat ice during an ongoing snowstorm.

Attorneys Fabio Sciarrino and ­­­­­Mark Merlini, Jr. of MOODK’s Philadelphia office obtained a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of their client, a flea market organizer, in a products liability claim. Plaintiff was injured when the tires on his used snowblower exploded during inflation. Plaintiff claimed that the snowblower, which was purchased from a flea market, was defective and subject to a recall.  In their complaint, they argued that secondhand retailers (i.e. thrift shops, flea markets, garage sales, etc.) not only have a duty to disclose “defective or unsafe operating conditions” but also to “realize” those unsafe conditions.  In the pleadings stage, the case was removed from the Court of Common Pleas to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where MOODK attorneys successfully argued that Plaintiff had fraudulently joined their client in the lawsuit and, furthermore, Plaintiff’s theory about the standard applicable to secondhand retailers, is untenable and a reach of current law.   In its opinion, the Court held that there was “simply no basis … in Pennsylvania law” to require secondhand retailers to inspect “seemingly legal, safe, and ordinary products to ensure they are not subject to recall or are otherwise dangerous.”

Dawn C. Doherty and Brett T. Norton of MOODK’s Delaware office obtained dismissal of all charges against a medical provider and their staff. Plaintiff initiated an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging medical negligence on behalf of their deceased parent who passed away due to complications from COVID-19. Plaintiff asserted that Defendants, who were all medical providers within the state of Delaware, caused decedent’s death because a member of their nursing staff allegedly contracted the virus and did not wear a mask while treating decedent, thereby causing decedent to contract COVID-19, ultimately causing her death.

A District Court will have jurisdiction if the action involves two citizens of different states and the controversy exceeds $75,000.00. Here, Plaintiff asserted complete diversity as she was a resident of Georgia and all Defendants were citizens of Delaware. However, because survivorship claims require the Plaintiff to assume the citizenship of the decedent, the Court did not have jurisdiction over the matter because decedent was also a citizen of Delaware.

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Undue Hardship Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for establishing when an undue hardship exists under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). In Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General (2023) the plaintiff, Gerald Groff was an Evangelical Christian who believed that Sundays should be devoted to worship and rest. Groff took a job with the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), which generally did not entail him working on Sundays. This changed when USPS agreed to take Sunday deliveries for Amazon. Groff changed ] USPS locations where he worked, to an area that did not deliver on Sundays. Amazon deliveries eventually became part of Groff’s job at the new location, and he still was unwilling to work due to his religious beliefs. USPS redistributed his deliveries to other workers and Groff received progressive discipline for not working on Sundays. Groff eventually resigned believing that he would be terminated from his employment and sued alleging violations of Title VII based on his religion.

The Court was asked to define an undue hardship under Title VII and specifically overrule the de minimus test that lower courts had been using. The Court held that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The Court further clarified that all relevant factors should be taken into account including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in light of the nature, size, and operating cost of an employer. Id.

In so ruling, the Court focused on its previous opinion in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison requiring an employer to bear no more than a de minimis cost to establish undue burden. In relying on Hardison, the Court clarified the various definitions of “hardship” and determined that hardship is more severe than a mere burden and that “undue” requires the burden to rise to an excessive or unjustifiable level. The Court then overruled the lower circuits reliance on Hardison for its justification of the de minimis test.

The Court having clarified the undue hardship standard, reversed and remanded the case, finding it “appropriate to leave the context specific application of that clarified standard to the lower courts in the first instance.”

The Court’s holding heightens the standard that employers must show to defend against claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in arguing that providing an accommodation would constitute an undue hardship. Employers must now show that granting an accommodation under this Act would lead to substantial increased costs or create some other burden that rises to an unjustifiable level. Employers can no longer rely on a mere inconvenience to the business or its other employees in order to establish an undue hardship and deny an accommodation. Moving forward, in determining whether to deny an accommodation, employers should consider the cost of the accommodation, the size of the company, and the effect the accommodation may have on the employer’s other employees. However, employers must be cautious when weighing the impact that the accommodation may have on fellow employees and ensure that the hardship would be legitimate rather than merely angering employees because they don’t agree with a person’s religion or beliefs.

At Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien, Doherty & Kelly, with offices located in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh), New Jersey, Delaware, New York (Manhattan and Westchester County), and Maryland, our dedicated and talented group of attorneys are available to defend employers in every aspect of employment-based litigation. We handle matters involving sexual harassment, sexual orientation, race discrimination, Title VII, various federal and state statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act and the Family Medical Leave Act. We are prepared to aggressively mount a defense at every phase, from the initial claim through the administrative process and any ultimate litigation. We also review existing employment policies and practices to help clients minimize litigation risk. If litigation does result, a cohesive representation plan is essential to a successful resolution. We recognize the business realities faced by our clients and work with them to achieve business goals in a manner consistent with state and federal law.