UTU Bus News Digest - July, 1999

UTU Bus Department News Digest
Information of interest to transportation employees July, 1999

Transit Agencies Must Pay Workers While They Are Trained for New Jobs

Transit agencies must pay workers while they are trained for new jobs, a federal appeals court in Chicago ruled recently.

The ruling resulted from a 1986 lawsuit by Amalgamated Transit Union Local 308 against the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA). The union wanted compensation for its members who were not paid while the CTA trained them either for their first assignments or retrained them for different jobs on the "L" lines.

The CTA argued initially that it was exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act and did not need to pay compensation only for job training. Local 308 said the CTA could get no exemption for job training.

Despite appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit agreed with the Union. As a result of the ruling, the CTA agreed to a $1.4 million settlement with Local 308 last month.

"The suit established the fact that the law applied to CTA and that the authority was obligated to pay workers for training," said Jerry Williams, Sr., Local 308 president. "It wasn't a matter of their whim, it was the law."

ADA Does Not Require Employer to Bump Incumbent

A disabled union-represented employee with seniority rights cannot force Michelin North America Inc. to bump a junior employee from a different job as an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act, the Seventh Circuit rules.

The court rejects plaintiff Francia Pond's assertion that the ADA required Michelin to bump an incumbent employee from a job that suited her work restrictions. "At the outset, it is important to note that Pond does not rely on the [collective bargaining agreement] itself in seeking to bump a less senior employee from the position," Judge Flaum writes. Rather, Pond contended that because the agreement allowed her to bump the employee from the job, the position should be considered "vacant" for purposes of the ADA.

The court, however, says the legislative history of the ADA and rulings from other circuits support its conclusion that "Congress did not intend that other workers lose their positions in order to accommodate a disabled worker." (DLR-7/1/99)

Supreme Court Rulings Limiting ADA could ease legal burden on Transit

Three Supreme Court decisions last week might have reduced the workload for paratransit service and could limit the number of employee lawsuits against transit agencies.

The court ruled that protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are limited to people whose conditions cannot be corrected with medication or devices, such as glasses or hearing aids. The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against a "qualified individual with a disability."

The three rulings strike down lawsuits by a truck driver who is nearly blind in one eye, Albertson's v. Kirkingburg; nearsighted twins who applied to be commercial pilots, Sutton v. United Airlines; and a mechanic with high blood pressure, Vaughn Murphy v. UPS. Under current ADA classifications, 43 million Americans are disabled.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, "Had Congress intended to include all persons with corrected physical limitations among those covered by the Act, it undoubtedly would have cited a much higher number of disabled persons in the findings. That it did not is evidence that ADA's coverage is restricted to only those whose impairments are not mitigated by corrective measures."

An example of what the rulings could mean for transit agencies was demonstrated by a recent Washington State Human Rights Commission report on human rights complaints in Spokane. It showed that alleged disability discrimination created the greatest number of complaints in 1997, the last year for which statistics are available. There were 29 formal complaints based on disability, compare to 28 based on gender and 13 on race.

At the same time, the Spokane Transit Authority is cutting back door-to-door paratransit service for the 10,600 Spokane residents who qualify for it. Like many transit agencies, Spokane Transit is having difficulty keeping up with the demand for service. Paratransit often is the most expensive service transit agencies provide and returns the least amount or revenue in fares.

The Supreme Court rulings last week might reduce the number of people who qualify for paratransit service, thereby reducing the drain on personnel and funds for transit agencies that provide it. The Spokane Transit Authority recently hired a consultant to review the eligibility of paratransit riders. The Supreme Court rulings could make such reviews a good idea for other transit agencies.

In addition, transit agencies might have less reason to fear lawsuits by employees who claim to be disabled. The Supreme Court rulings resulted from employees or job applicants who wanted special accommodations or privileges because of their claimed disabilities.

In Albertson's v. Kirkingburg, a supermarket chain truck driver was fired for failing a Department of Transportation vision test. He is almost blind in one eye but has an impeccable driving safety record. The Supreme Court ruled the truck driver is not protected by the ADA.

In Murphy v. UPS, a United Parcel Service truck mechanic was fired because he had high blood pressure. The Supreme Court ruled he was not protected by the ADA. (6-30-99 UTN)

"Free fare" zone created on Tacoma Link

A little numbers juggling resulted in a conclusion by Seattle area's Sound Transit official's recently that allowing free fares on the 1.6-mile downtown light rail line would be less expensive than making passengers pay. A fare collection system would cost $40,000 more per year than allowing free fares on the Tacoma Link light rail system, scheduled to open in 2002. As a result, transit officials decided to create a "free fare" zone for the ride from downtown to the Tacoma Dome. (6-30-99 UTN)