Robert Antoine v. First Student, Incorporated
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7273
5th Cir.2013Background
- Antoine, a Seventh-day Adventist, observes the Sabbath Friday sundown to Saturday sundown and held a leadership role at his church.
- He worked for First Student as a bus driver; in 2009-2010 he became a bench driver due to low seniority and was assigned Route FS651, ending around 5:40 PM on Fridays.
- After Daylight Savings Time ended, sunset moved earlier on Fridays, creating eight potential conflicts with Antoine’s Sabbath during November 2009–January 2010.
- Antoine informed First Student on October 30, 2009 that he could not complete Friday shifts after sundown; meetings followed with supervisor Franklin and dispatchers.
- First Student proposed accommodations including a voluntary shift swap (potentially via a union-backed MOU), but the CBA prohibited routine swapping; Antoine disputes that the company offered concrete assistance.
- Antoine ultimately missed several Friday shifts, received warnings, was suspended, and was terminated for excessive absenteeism in January 2010; he filed a Title VII claim alleging failure to accommodate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether First Student reasonably accommodated Antoine. | Antoine argues the company failed to provide a workable accommodation and did not follow through on offering a voluntary swap or MOU. | First Student maintains it offered a shift-swap opportunity and pursued a potential MOU; the actual remedy was Antoine’s duty to cooperate. | Not decided on summary judgment; factual disputes require remand. |
| Whether the voluntary shift swap was actually offered or the duty to cooperate. | Antoine contends First Student told him to find a substitute; the company unequivocally offered to arrange swaps. | First Student contends the accommodation was simply an opportunity to arrange a swap; Antoine had to locate a volunteer. | Material disputes exist; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Whether an MOU with the union was pursued as part of the accommodation. | Antoine and Jackson assert no commitment or effort to obtain an MOU; First Student contradicts via Guerdon's testimony. | First Student claims it contacted the union to discuss a side agreement; union testimony is equivocal. | Disputes over union efforts preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether the district court correctly applied the reasonable accommodation standard. | District court relied on a theory that the CBA’s existence alone is a reasonable accommodation; errors in factual predicate exist. | Court may rely on established standards; First Student argues the CBA and proposed swap provisions justify accommodation. | Issue preserved; material facts preclude ruling on the standard at this stage. |
| Whether accommodating Antoine would have caused undue hardship. | Undue hardship should not bar a reasonable accommodation if a viable option exists within the CBA or via a swap. | District court’s undue hardship analysis relied on potential conflicts with the CBA and other contractual agreements; remand to re-evaluate is necessary. | Remanded for reconsideration consistent with contract interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (U.S. Supreme Court 1977) (seniority-based accommodation upheld; employer need not violate valid contract)
- Brener v. Diagnostic Center Hosp., 671 F.2d 141 (5th Cir. 1982) (employee must cooperate; employer may implement flexible schedules within contract)
- Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (employer must provide reasonable accommodation but not impose undue hardship)
- Weber v. Roadway Express, Inc., 199 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2000) (undue hardship standard; scope of reasonable accommodation)