Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, Inc. et al v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
| Paul Nunziato, Joseph Arias, Christopher Carini and Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, Inc. |
| Port Authority of New York and New Jersey |
| 1:2016cv03907 |
| May 25, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| William H. Pauley |
| Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
61
OPINION & ORDER re: 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 49 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, Inc: The Port Authority undoubtedly serve s a vital public interest in safeguarding and securing its facilities. This Court recognizes the wisdom in requiring police officers to undergo regular medical screening or medical examinations to ensure that they can protect the public. But where su ch examinations implicate the privacy interests under the ADA, they must be consistent with business necessity. The Port Authority makes that showing for its injured-on-duty fitness-for-duty examinations, and this Court grants summary judgment to the Port Authority with respect to those examinations. But because the Port Authority has not established that its compulsory annual medical examinations or sick leave fitness-for-duty examinations are consistent with business necessity, the ADA compels summary judgment for PAPBA on those examinations. Nevertheless, this Court would be remiss if it did not express skepticism about a labor union negotiating healthcare benefits for its members and then turning around and suing the employer to rescind some of them. This irony is particularly stark given the current healthcare debate in the United States and the worries of many Americans about whether their medical needs will be met. Port Authority police officers enjoy better healthcare than most Americans. Their collective bargaining agreement requires the Port Authority to pay the full premium costs for their healthcare insurance. Until today, not only did Port Authority police officers have free medical care, they received a day's pa y for submitting to an annual medical examination. This Court wonders how many Americans would welcome such a generous arrangement. PAPBA's motion is granted in part and denied in part, and the Port Authority's motion is granted in part and denied in part. The parties are directed to submit a proposed judgment consistent with this Opinion & Order by November 3, 2017. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at ECF No. 31 and ECF No. 49. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 10/24/2017) (jwh)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
