Harrington v. MTA

Synopsis

Harrington v. MTA is a civil suit filed on behalf of Sikh subway motorman Kevin Harrington against the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), which attempted to prevent him from wearing his turban while on the job.

Status

Discovery was finished early in 2007. CCR is awaiting New York City’s filing of a summary judgment motion.

Description

Harrington v. MTA is a civil suit filed on behalf of Kevin Harrington, a Sikh subway motorman who, following the September 11 attacks, was ordered by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of New York to either wear an MTA cap instead of his turban or choose a yard job out of sight of the public.

As a practicing Sikh, Mr. Harrington is required to maintain uncut hair and cover it with a turban, a requirement that is central to the Sikh faith. Harrington, who has worked for the MTA for 20 years, has worn a turban on the job the entire time. It was only in June 2004 that an MTA official ordered Mr. Harrington to remove his turban and that if he refused to do so, he would lose his job as a train operator and the privileges he had earned based on his years of service. In response, he requested that the MTA respect his religious beliefs and refused to remove his turban.

In June 2004, Mr. Harrington was punished and reassigned, but days later, he was placed back in his original position. He was then asked to place an MTA logo on his turban, still a violation of his religious beliefs, but out of fear of losing his jobs and benefits, he reluctantly agreed to do so.

The suit charges that the MTA violated both Title VII (the federal law prohibiting discrimination in employment) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) when it asked Harrington to either not wear his turban or accept another job. Under the NYSHRL, where an employee requests a variance from standard employment practices (e.g., a uniform requirement) for religious reasons, an employer must make reasonable accommodation unless it can demonstrate undue hardship, meaning “significant expense or difficulty.”

Timeline

On July 13, 2005, CCR along with co-counsel filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Discovery was finished early in 2007. CCR is awaiting New York City’s filing of a summary judgment motion