A town police employee was laid off after 31 years on the job. A collective bargaining agreement between the police union and the town required the recall of qualified employees based on seniority. During the year following the plaintiff's layoff, he was not recalled, although a number of vacancies in the police department did open up. The plaintiff claimed that the failure to recall him deprived him without due process of a property interest in his right to be recalled. The trial court entered judgment for the town, based on a bargaining agreement it found imposed a condition precedent that the plaintiff submit his address and phone number to the town following a layoff in order to assert his recall rights, which he did not do. A federal appeals court vacated the judgment, finding that the bargaining agreement recall provision did not unambiguously create a condition precedent, and that the timing of that obligation was not clear, and therefore further fact-finding proceedings were required. Clukey v. Town of Camden, Maine, #14-1264, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 13957, 203 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3621 (1st Cir.).
     Where a police analyst claimed that management failed to accommodate his sleep apnea condition and constructively discharged him, the city was not required to offer an employee an accommodation that would have interfered with the seniority rights of other workers. Herr v. City of Chicago, #05C7145, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21644 (N.D. Ill.).
     Arbitrator concludes that seniority is measured from the date a person begins work, not the date that he or she was hired. Nationwide Parking Services and Teamsters L-961, 122 LA (BNA) 121, FMCS Case # 05/51375 (DiFalco,, 2005). {N/R}
     Although an arbitrator concluded that management had mistakenly calculated a fire lieutenant's seniority, and the future benefits must be calculated correctly, the lieutenant should not be required to reimburse the agency for any pay or benefits already received as a result of a mistake. Orange Co. and O.C. Prof. FF L-2057, 121 LA (BNA) 1002, AAA #33-390-00450-04 (Hoffman, 2005). {N/R}
     California Supreme Court overturns a state law and bargaining agreements that incorporates seniority in state service into hiring and promotional decisions. Cal. State Pers. Bd. v. Cal. St. Employees Assn., #S122058, 36 Cal.4th 758, 115 P.3d 506, 177 LRRM (BNA) 3064, 2005 Cal. Lexis 8225 (Cal. 2005). [2005 FP Nov]
     Productivity vs. Seniority: State labor commission says that while shift assignments are bargainable and arbitrable, public employers have a non-negotiable prerogative to match employees to specific jobs for quality purposes. Middletown Twp. and P.B.A. L-124, P.E.R.C. #2004-70, 2004 NJPER (LRP) Lexis 50, 30 NJPER 55 (NJ PERC 2004). [2004 FP Nov]
     Management did not violate the bargaining agreement when it involuntarily transferred an officer, with the most seniority in the north sector, to the south sector. The CBA provided that seniority should be considered only for unusual shift assignments. City of Laredo and Laredo POA, 119 LA (BNA) 1651, AAA #70-390-00787-03 (Moore, 2004). [2004 FP Nov]
     Court holds that only seniority within the affected department is relevant for reductions in force, unless layoffs are citywide. Town of East Hartford v. CSEA-MEU L-760 SEIU, CV#040830663S, 2004 Conn. Super. Lexis 1274 (Unpub. 2004). {N/R}
     Arbitrator holds that the city violated a past practice when management selected a less senior firefighter to fill a vacancy by transfer. Arbitrator also ordered payment of overtime differential. City of Urbana and Urbana F/F Assn., 119 LA (BNA) 1078, FMCS Case No. 041202/01725/6 (Imundo 2004). [2004 FP Sep]
     Arbitrator rejects a claim that there was a recognized past practice that allowed the sheriff to disregard a seniority clause in the bargaining agreement. There was no proof of a "public safety" necessity to warrant making a involuntary shift reassignment. Lincoln Co. Sheriff's Dept. and Teamsters L-2, 118 LA (BNA) 1340, FMCS Case 02/0318-06959-7 (Calhoun, 2003). [2003 FP Dec]
     An employer's showing that a requested accommodation conflicts with seniority rules is ordinarily sufficient to show, as a matter of law, that an "accommodation" is not "reasonable." However, the employee remains free to present evidence of special circumstances that makes a seniority rule exception reasonable in the particular case. Barnett v US Airways, 00-1250, 535 U.S. 391, 122 S.Ct 1516 (2002). {N/R}
     Overtime policy based on shift seniority rather than tenure with the employer does not discriminate against older workers. Casteel v. Exec. Bd. of L-703, #01-1643, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 24511 (7th Cir. 2001). {N/R}
     State could not adjust a firefighter's seniority date for two days spent on involuntary disciplinary suspension. In re Flynn, #99-173, 764 A.2d 881, 2000 N.H. Lexis 87 (N.H. 2001). {N/R}
     The grievant complained that he was deprived of his seniority rights when the employer allowed a less-senior worker who suffered from depression to take his place on the day shift. The arbitrator reversed, noting that nothing in the ADA requires an employer to sacrifice other workers’ rights as part of its effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. Cont., Med. and Wel. Inc., 110 LA (BNA) 674 (Klein, 1998). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court rejects accommodation of a disabled worker in violation of seniority. “Even minor infringements on other employees” seniority rights impose unreasonable burdens on employers who, by reason of those infringements, must face the consequences of violating the collective bargaining agreement.” Kralik v. Durbin, 7 AD Cases (BNA) 1040 (3rd Cir. 1997). {N/R}
     Arbitrator affirms decision to transfer a junior firefighter to an investigations unit; contract allowed chief to consider merit and seniority. Cincinnati (City of) and Firefighters Union L-48, FMCS #95/20487, 106 LA (BNA) 697 (Stanton, 1996). [1996 FP 173-4]
     Federal court in New York refuses to dismiss a complaint, filed by an Adventist correction officer; employer unsuccessfully argued that a seniority provision in the collective bargaining agreement was a “per se” defense to a claim for reasonable accommodation. Genas v. State Dept. of Corr. Svcs. 1994 U.S.Dist. Lexis 20037 (S.D.N.Y.); 67 FEP Cases (BNA) 27. See also: State v. Council 82 AFSCME, 575 N.Y.S.2d 175 (A.D. 1991); Appeal denied, 592 N.E.2d 799. (N.Y. 1992). [1995 FP 93]
     Arbitrator rejects use of general aptitude tests for promotional purposes in favor of seniority system, where management was limited to testing candidates for job qualifications only. GTE and IBEW L-289, 103 LA (BNA) 1205 (Duff, 1994). [1995 FP 86-7]
     There is no “per se” rule under the ADA that reassignment of an employee in violation of the CBA or seniority system is an unreasonable accommodation. The conflict is simply another factor to weigh. Emrick v. Libbey-Owens-Ford, 875 F.Supp. 393 (E.D.Tex. 1995). {N/R}
     An Ohio home rule city must adopt clear and specific language to overrule state statutes that pertain to seniority credits for promotional purposes. The power to adopt specific seniority computation rules may be delegated to the city's civil service commission. State ex rel. Regetz v. Cleveland Civ. Serv. Cmsn., #94-1640, 72 Ohio St.3d 167, 648 N.E.2d 495, 1995 Ohio Lexis 1031 (1995). {N/R}
     Federal court rules that employees cannot refuse a promotion, causing them to lose seniority of rank, by claiming age discrimination. Hiatt v. Union Pacific R.R., 1994 U.S.Dist. Lexis 11037 (D. Wyo.). [1995 FP 10].
     Bargaining agreement requiring layoffs of deputy sheriffs by seniority was unenforceable, where state law provides that deputies serve at the pleasure of the sheriff, and department manual permits layoffs by performance appraisals. Webb Co. and C.L.E.A.T., 103 LA (BNA) 446 (McKee, 1994). {N/R}
     Employee with sleep disorder was not entitled to a shift change which would have run afoul of seniority provisions in the C.B.A. Fitzpatrick v. Ill. Hum. Rts. Cmsn., 642 N.E.2d 486 (Ill.App. 1994). {N/R}
     Michigan arbitrator upholds a unilateral transfer of a police lieutenant to the day shift to accommodate his illness, despite the union's objection that shift assignments are strictly controlled by a seniority clause in the collectively bargained agreement. Dearborn Heights P.S.A. and City of Dearborn Heights, 101 LA (BNA) 809, A.A.A. #54-39-0203-93 (Kanner, 1993). [1994 FP 24-5]
     Management could pass over a more senior candidate for assignment to the SWAT unit where there were recent reports of his assaulting his wife. The reports were credible and shed doubt as to the grievant's self-discipline, demeanor, maturity, and ability to cope under stress, which are valid qualifications for the SWAT unit. Kansas City Kan. Police and FOP L-4, FMCS #88/06871, 91 LA (BNA) 57 (Thornell, 1988). {N/R}
     Arkansas supreme court holds that cities may not use seniority as a factor in promotions, absent statutory authority. Worth v. Civil Serv. Cmsn. of El Dorado, 746 S.W.2d (Ark. 1988).
     Employees do not receive seniority credit for period they worked under CETA funds or during fiscal lay-off period. Campisi v. McGuire, 451 N.Y.S.2d 767 (A.D. 1982).
     Seniority, for promotional purposes, means last period of continuous employment; prior service not cumulative. Firemen's and Policemen's Civil Serv. Cmsn. of Lubbock v. Taylor, 607 S.W.2d 631 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980).
     Reinstated employee not entitled to seniority rights when not awarded back pay. Hallman v. City of Northport, 386 So.2d 756 (Ala. App. 1980).
     Pennsylvania Supreme Court upholds 20 year retirement arbitration award. City of Jeannette v. Frat. Order of Police, #24, 385 A.2d 351 (Pa. 1978).
     Reductions in rank "by seniority" means senior in that rank, not departmental seniority. Yeley v. Bartonville Fire & Police Cmsn., 380 N.E.2d 1387 (Ill.App. 1978). Uninterrupted service for seniority purposes is constitutional. Garcia v. City of Warren Civil Serv. Cmsn. for Police and Fire Depts., 261 N.W.2d 19 (Mich. App. 1977).
     Uninterrupted service for seniority purposes is constitutional. Garcia v. City of Warren Civil Serv. Cmsn., 261 N.W.2d 19 (Mich. App. 1977).
     Note: For the effect of seniority in discrimination cases, See: Race Discrimination; Handicap Discrimination; Shift Rotations & Work Assnmts; Race and Sex Discrimination; and Sex Discrimination - for additional cases.