Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_04-cv-04021/USCOURTS-arwd-4_04-cv-04021-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2003 Job Discrimination

---

Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a motion for 1

reconsideration, and Domtar fails to identify what rule it is proceeding under, the Court will

construe this motion as made pursuant to Rule 60(b) which allows relief from a Court’s order

under certain designated conditions.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

KENNETH KENNER PLAINTIFF 

 

VS. Case No. 04-CV-4021

DOMTAR INDUSTRIES, INC. DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the Court are Defendant Domtar Industries, Inc.’s (“Domtar”) Motion for

Reconsideration (doc. 37) and Domtar’s Motion to Shorten Time for Plaintiff to Respond to 1

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 38). The Court finds these motions ripe for

consideration and, for the following reasons, finds the motion to reconsider should be denied and

the motion to shorten time for Plaintiff to respond to the motion for reconsideration should be

denied as moot.

The Court disagrees with Domtar that the existence of a shift swap system in a collective

bargaining agreement can establish a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law. Because

Plaintiff has established his prima facie case (for purposes of these summary judgment

proceedings) Domtar has the burden of proving that it offered Plaintiff a reasonable

accommodation. In its motion for reconsideration, Domtar argues “[it] did not sit idly by and not

allow Kenner to swap shifts . . . [and it] made an effort to enforce the CBA by allowing Plaintiff

to actually swap shifts where he could be off for religious purposes.” Title VII’s reasonable

accommodation provisions contemplate an interactive process, with cooperation between the

employer and the employee, but which must be initiated by the employer. In this case, there is no

evidence before the Court that Domtar initiated this process, only that a shift-swap system was in

existence. 

Also, the Court finds that Domtar has not established that it is entitled to summary

Case 4:04-cv-04021-HFB Document 39 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
judgment by showing that no accommodation was possible because it would impose an undue

hardship. The record contains fact issues as to what monetary costs would be born by Domtar if

it accommodated Plaintiff, and whether or not any accommodation would contravene the

provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between Plaintiff’s union and Domtar. 

The Court remains unwilling to grant summary judgment in Domtar’s favor based on the

record before the Court. To the extent that Domtar’s motion for reconsideration attempts to raise

new legal arguments, the Court finds it improperly before the Court and should be denied. 

Upon consideration, for the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the Motion for

Reconsideration (doc. 37) should be and hereby is denied and the Motion to Shorten Time for

Plaintiff to Respond to the Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 38) should be and hereby is denied

as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2006.

 /s/ Harry F. Barnes 

Hon. Harry F. Barnes

U.S. District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04021-HFB Document 39 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>