U.S. District Court, Western District of New York Case Summaries: January 29, 2008

U.S. District Court, Western District of New York

Public Transportation

School Busing —

Private Competition

Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority v. Hynes- Cherin

07-CV-6378L

Judge Larimer

Issue: Is the use of federal public transit funds for school transportation legal when the school route buses are open to the public but not economically viable absent public subsidization?

Background: The Rochester City School District wished to use RTA buses to transport an increased share of the student population as a result of later start times being implemented at local high schools. The private bus company that services the district was unable to provide service at this time in the morning. The Federal Transit Administration ruled that the use of subsidized public busing for school transportation is a violation of federal regulations except in the narrow circumstance wherein the school service is “open to the public” and not limited by the school calendar. RGRTA commenced action against the regional administrator of the FTA, alleging the FTA ruling was arbitrary and capricious.

Ruling: The court finds it was arbitrary given the fact the FTA condoned such transportation arrangements in the past and the FTA’s interpretation of the regulation seems to add an implicit requirement that not only requires service be “open to the public,” but also must be economically viable absent the transportation of students.

David J. Edwards of Harris Beach PLLC for the petitioner, and Brian M. McCarthy, assistant U.S. attorney, for the respondent

Employment Discrimination

Protected Activity

Bennett v. Verizon Wireless

04-CV-6314 CJS

Judge Siragusa

Issue: Is summary judgment appropriate when the plaintiff alleges dismissal following a protected activity but the defendant offers a non-discriminatory reason for dismissal?

Background: The defendant moved for summary judgment, which was denied. Before the court is a motion by the defendant to reconsider the denial. The determination on the original motion hinged on whether the plaintiff raised a material question as to whether the defendant’s purported reason for dismissing the plaintiff was a pretext.

Ruling: Finding that a court can revise an order denying summary judgment at any time prior to the entry of final judgment, and the defendant provided a legitimate reason for the plaintiff’s dismissal shortly after engaging in a protected activity, there exists no issue of material fact and the court grants summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

Christina A. Agola for the plaintiff, and Robert C. Weissflach of Harter Secrest and Emery LLP for the defendant

Originally published by Daily Record Staff & Wire Reports.

(c) 2008 Daily Record (Rochester, NY). Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.