Can't wait for this decision to be overturned by the whole panel

[Oss]

Unpublished decisions............ even seen one Jess?

Three judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit surprisingly rejected the appeal of Susan Abeles — a Washington, DC Orthodox Jew, who was punished by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) — because she took off work for the last two days of Passover in 2013.

Abeles’ closely watched case was the subject of friendly amicus briefs by the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs (COLPA), the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the American Jewish Committee. Ms. Abeles’ lawyer is Nathan Lewin, the well-known advocate for Jewish religious rights.

For each of the 26 years that Abeles worked at the MWAA, she took off for all Jewish holidays on which work is prohibited, including the last two days of Passover. Everyone at her job knew that she was an Orthodox Jew. She consistently gave her supervisors a list of the dates of Jewish holidays at the beginning of each calendar year, and her supervisors accepted that list as a request for annual leave on the specified holidays.


In 2012, new supervisors appeared. Ms. Abeles provided them with a list of the Jewish holidays on which she would be absent and also, at their request, specified the holidays in their Outlook calendars. On the Friday before the last two days of Passover in 2013 (which fell on Monday and Tuesday) she was unable to speak with her immediate supervisor because that person was out on annual leave. So, Abeles sent an email reminding the next supervisor in the chain of command. That supervisor replied with an email that affirmatively said, “Thanks.”

But when Abeles returned to work, she was slapped with an unexpected five-day suspension for missing those two days. Abeles sued. The case was transferred to a Virginia federal court on the Airports Authority’s motion.

In a 16-page decision written by Judge Allyson Duncan, the court declared, “We conclude that MWAA did not discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of her religion in violation of Title VII.” The Airports Authority argued that Ms. Abeles had failed to follow a formal “Leave Policy” procedure under which her immediate supervisor had to explicitly approve her leave in advance. That “Leave Policy” had not been invoked during her previous 26 years’ employment.

The Airports Authority also said that it was exempt from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because it was technically a “regional authority,” not a Federal agency. Attorneys for the Airports Authority defended the suspension on the asserted ground that Abeles was an “insubordinate” and “mediocre” employee, notwithstanding the record of awards and high performance ratings she received during her tenure.

During oral arguments late last year, an exasperated Lewin, appearing on Ms. Abeles’ behalf, abruptly declared: “Your Honor, I’m an Orthodox Jew. When I’ve worked for people, I’ve given them a list of what the Jewish holidays are at the beginning of the year. And they know that means I’m going to be out for those days. This is a phony response by [the agency] saying, ‘We didn’t know why you would be out.’ Of course, they knew why she was out. Everybody in the whole company knew that she was a Sabbath observer and for 26 years had been absent on Jewish holidays.”

He added, “To penalize her even though she has listed them and has notified her supervisors on the day before she was gone — we submit that’s outrageous.” In his argument to the court, Lewin also called the Airport Authority’s punishment an “ambush” of Ms. Abeles.

Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel of the Becket Fund, quipped, “It takes some chutzpah for the government to punish a Jewish woman for celebrating Passover. It takes even more chutzpah to say that they are the only government agency in DC exempt from our civil rights laws.”

In a highly unusual move, the court delivered its denial in a so-called “unpublished decision,” which cannot be cited as precedent in any future cases in that circuit. When the ruling was handed down on January 26, 2017 as “unpublished,” legal experts opined that the unusual status “reduced the likelihood that it would be noticed or criticized by lawyers.” A copy of the unpublished decision was obtained by this writer. When asked, Lewin stated that he knew of no other Federal appellate “unpublished” ruling that was so lengthy and detailed.

A clearly shocked Lewin promised to file a petition requesting review by the entire roster of active judges of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and, if necessary, seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States. Lewin’s father-daughter team has been before the Supreme Court 28 times, including for the famous “Jerusalem Passport” case. The undaunted litigator promised, “This decision will not stand.”

Wanna bet you wont see any BLM folks protesting this?

[baldo]

Oss,

That was an excellent read, and I'm 100% on your side on this case. But why did you have to add the last sentence? What do they have to do with it? Am I missing something?

Bob

[RDAbull]

Yes Bob, you are missing something. 
If you are suppose to stand for injustice then all injustice is to be stood for.

[Bighead]

Yes Bob, you are missing something. 
If you are suppose to stand for injustice then all injustice is to be stood for.

This!

[solo1]

If nothing else the government isn't consistent.  When I was in the Army Medical Corp there were many co's, some were Seventh Day Adventists.  The Army granted them leave on Saturdays as that was their Holy day.  It generated much criticism because Inspections were done on Saturday and the SDA's got out of all that.  No matter, it was enforced.

Evan, i'm with you on this. At least the Ninth Circuit Court isn't involved.

[Robert]

Me thinks you give the BLM's to  much credit, since its not really a move that comes from the heart, but a financed, paid for revolt by the none other than George Soros and his ilk.
   
  I have seen no restoration of funds or a public apology to the husband and wife bakers that lost their business to the state. Yet what I do see is reverse discrimination in the form of not only protests against Trump supporters but also not able to be served in public businesses without any consequences. We look at other countries and look at their kids shouting chants yet when we look at the protesters and rioters we think differently about them.

 I really have to wonder who these people are and if the left really does see the path that they are being led down is not the panacea it is supposed to be. Without the constitution being for all and without boarders and without each country having its own monetary system then we are truly not one country with an identity, but one world. If you consolidate power into a one world system then where is the check and balances against tyranny? Who are the left going to run to when rights are taken away? When you no longer own property or have an interest rate you can afford. When the Constitution is not adhered to and we see the courts not upholding this woman's constitutional rights then we are on the edge of being lost. If we didn't have the Constitution then were is the decency of her place of business to let her have this time off?

We have seen the personal lack of caring about individual freedoms unless they serve to bolster this one world system. We look at the history and people of the US and say we have truly seen the oppression of the religious and righteous here in the US all for the name of this system. It doesnt care about individual rights as we see the middle class shrinking and haveing a harder time to make thier dreams come true. Just remember all you liberals, When this plan, or system is done with those who oppose it then it will come for you. Becuase this system does not discriminate all will be slaves. The conservates are just the warning bell so to speak.

                       John Donne: Poems "For whom the bell tolls"
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."


The other thing is the courts are supposed to be unbiased and follow the rule of law but that Ninth is a bastion of liberalism that is hard to fight against.

[Oss]

To me, Who does not speak up immediately is important just as who does speak up immediately about something. I picked BLM because they are usually so immediate in opposition to perceived injustice but conspicuous here by their silence  One would hope jewish faith groups having had the back of the civil rights movement from before day one that some leader of any group seeking equal treatment incuding those of color might mention the decision against this employee as arbitrary, capricious and downright wrong.  Apparently I have not seen this yet, maybe we will  I'm not holding my breath.

Baldo, perhaps as well I could've added where is the ACLU, any of the so called other liberal groups who extol equal treatment ?  Lets see who steps up on this case as it goes before the full panel.

.

[..]

Seems like the MWAA has made a storm out of a teacup. Stoopid people.

[Alpha Dog]

Even Sandy Kofax and Hank Greenburg were allowed to not play on passover.

[baldo]

To me, Who does not speak up immediately is important just as who does speak up immediately about something. I picked BLM because they are usually so immediate in opposition to perceived injustice but conspicuous here by their silence  One would hope jewish faith groups having had the back of the civil rights movement from before day one that some leader of any group seeking equal treatment incuding those of color might mention the decision against this employee as arbitrary, capricious and downright wrong.  Apparently I have not seen this yet, maybe we will  I'm not holding my breath.

Baldo, perhaps as well I could've added where is the ACLU, any of the so called other liberal groups who extol equal treatment ?  Lets see who steps up on this case as it goes before the full panel.

.

Oss,

Is there a prominent Jewish rights group that gets involved in these matters? Do they also pickup other causes and lend a hand with them? Have they ever gotten involved with BLM at any of their protests? I'm asking because there isn't any superhero organization, that I'm aware of, that is involved with every instance of injustice. They wouldn't be very effective, I think.

Unless it was the New England Patriots. Now they know how to kick some butt.....

[Pete]

Seems that after 26 years of repetition a general policy has been established.
Whether one likes it or not
And in order to change it a written directive would be necessary or at least advisable.

Since there was a change in intermediate management prior to the leave becoming an issue. Perhaps the problem is there. And could be resolved there. Hummmm.

[Serk]

I hafta agree with Baldo on this one. While this lady was wronged, I don't expect BLM to get involved, since they are a single issue black supremacy organization. If it doesn't involve black supremacy or non-black hatred, it's not in scope for BLM's activities. 

(That, and much like the Klan, "BLM" isn't a single monolithic organization, but more an idea of shared hate, so there is no single spokesman that can stand up and make a stance on this or any other issue.)

[Jess from VA]

That “Leave Policy” had not been invoked during her previous 26 years’ employment.

This fact alone (and she has a boatload of other facts on her side) should win her an appeal.

Generally speaking, public and private agencies (and this sure looks like a public agency to me), are not allowed to make the rules up as they go along.  Assuming she was not a chronic employee offender of the rules (and this requires a pile of documenting paperwork), and assuming without conceding this was a righteous bust, termination from employment was simply too serious of a punishment for a first (or second) offender with an otherwise excellent record of service.  

To me, this sounds more like age discrimination than religious discrimination; senior folks in Federal service always make as much as 2-3 new rookies, and they love to get rid of senior people all the time as a result.

The unpublished part of this decision makes the whole thing especially smell of month old carp laying on the beach.

[The emperor has no clothes]

That “Leave Policy” had not been invoked during her previous 26 years’ employment.

This fact alone (and she has a boatload of other facts on her side) should win her an appeal.

Generally speaking, public and private agencies (and this sure looks like a public agency to me), are not allowed to make the rules up as they go along.  Assuming she was not a chronic employee offender of the rules (and this requires a pile of documenting paperwork), and assuming without conceding this was a righteous bust, termination from employment was simply too serious of a punishment for a first (or second) offender with an otherwise excellent record of service.  

To me, this sounds more like age discrimination than religious discrimination; senior folks in Federal service always make as much as 2-3 new rookies, and they love to get rid of senior people all the time as a result.

The unpublished part of this decision makes the whole thing especially smell of month old carp laying on the beach.

I thought see was punished with a 5 day suspension , not termination ?

[Jess from VA]

Upon review, you may be right.

I'd be pissed about the suspension too, but 5 days would not make me want to take on Goliath in a court action or three (and attorney fees).  Unless I thought they were loading their dice to fire me soon anyway.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Upon review, you may be right.

I'd be pissed about the suspension too, but 5 days would not make me want to take on Goliath in a court action or three (and attorney fees).  Unless I thought they were loading their dice to fire me soon anyway.

I can understand that you have to stand up for your principles. But as you say, I don't know if I'd be willing to take it to court. Maybe there is more to the story.

[Rams]

Maybe there is more to the story.

There is always, more to the story.................