Rose v. Midwest Express Airlines
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
2002 WL 31095361 (2002)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Susan Rose (plaintiff) was a flight attendant for Midwest Express Airlines, Inc. (Midwest) (defendant) with a history of disciplinary problems at work. On two separate occasions, a coworker reported that Rose appeared to be sleeping while she was supposed to be working on a flight. Rose threatened the coworker and took retaliatory actions. Rose had no explanation for why it appeared that she had been sleeping on the flight. On the second flight at issue, Rose claimed that she had been praying, not sleeping, when the coworker saw her with her eyes closed. Midwest had a policy that flight attendants could not sleep or give the appearance of sleeping while working. Midwest fired Rose, and Rose sued for religious discrimination. Rose identified as a Christian and admitted that her religious beliefs allowed her to pray with her eyes open and did not require that she pray at any specific time. Rose also conceded that many other Midwest employees and managers were Christian, that her supervisors knew she frequently prayed on flights and had never told her to stop, and that Midwest had never expressed any anti-Christian bias. Midwest moved for summary judgment, claiming that the no-sleeping policy was for safety because flight attendants needed open eyes to perform their duties of assisting and protecting passengers. Midwest also provided evidence that Rose had never asked Midwest to accommodate her religious needs and that Midwest had terminated another employee at the same time for violating the same policy.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bataillon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 783,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.