Summary of Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc.
The Supreme Court's Review of Reasonable Accommodations Under the ADA
Barry C. Taylor Legal Advocacy Director, Equip for Equality, Inc.
The Facts of the Barnett Case
Robert Barnett worked for U.S. Air, which had a policy to allow employees to change jobs under a seniority system. This policy was not part of a collective bargaining agreement. During his employment, Barnett injured his back. After returning from disability leave, Barnett could no longer perform all of the physical requirements of his job, and he used his seniority rights to transfer into a mailroom position. Subsequently, Barnett learned that two employees with greater seniority planned to exercise their seniority rights to transfer to the mailroom, which would have "bumped" Barnett out of the mailroom and into the cargo area of the company, which would require heavy lifting.
Barnett requested that he be allowed to stay in the mailroom as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. When this accommodation was not provided, Barnett asked that he either be provided with lifting equipment in the cargo facility or that the cargo job be restructured so that he would do only warehouse office work. Ultimately, his employer also denied these additional accommodation requests.
Barnett filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which found that U.S. Air had discriminated against Barnett by failing to provide him with a reasonable accommodation. Subsequently, Barnett filed suit under the ADA against his employer on a variety of issues, including the employer's failure to make an exception to its seniority policy and its refusal to provide him with a reasonable accommodation. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, and Barnett appealed the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit affirmed, but following a rehearing by the full panel of the 9th Circuit case, the court ruled that reassignment is a reasonable accommodation available under the ADA, and that a seniority system cannot be a per se bar to reassignment. The court held that a seniority system is a factor in determining if an accommodation would pose an undue hardship, and that a case-by-case fact intensive analysis is required to determine whether any particular reassignment would constitute an undue hardship to the employer. The court went on to hold that if there is no undue hardship, a disabled employee who seeks reassignment as a reasonable accommodation, if otherwise qualified for a position, should receive the position rather than merely being given the opportunity to compete for the job with non-disabled employees.
The U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear the Case
On April 16, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 9th Circuit's decision. The question for the Supreme Court to decide, as it has been framed by the employer, is as follows: Whether the ADA requires an employer to reassign an employee with a disability to a different position as a reasonable accommodation even though another employee is entitled to hold the position under the employer's bona fide and established seniority system, or whether the ADA's reasonable accommodation requirement does not compel an employer to disregard the rights of other employees under its seniority policy. The Court will likely hear oral argument on the case in the fall of 2001.
Potential Implications of the Case
The Supreme Court will decide whether, under the ADA, U.S. Air acted properly when it refused to make an exception to its seniority policy and provide Barnett with a reasonable accommodation.
The Supreme Court may also provide guidance to employers and people with disabilities more generally about the way in which reassignment can be used as a reasonable accommodation.
Although this particular case did not involve a seniority system under a collective bargaining agreement, the Supreme Court's decision could have an impact upon reasonable accommodations in unionized settings. In most of the other cases involving seniority systems and reasonable accommodations, a collective bargaining agreement has been at issue. For instance, in Eckles v. Conrail, 93 F.3d 1041, 1051 (7th Cir. 1996) cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1318 (1997), the Seventh Circuit held that the duty to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA does not require an employer to sacrifice the "collectively bargained, bona fide seniority rights of other employees."
The Supreme Court's review of this case may also clarify the issue of whether a person who requests reassignment as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA is entitled to that particular position if he or she is otherwise qualified, or if the employer is only required to allow that person to compete for the job. Although the EEOC's position is that the qualified person with a disability should be provided the job as a reasonable accommodation, the Seventh Circuit has rejected the EEOC's position holding that the employer is only required to allow the person to compete for the position when it was the employer's policy to hire the best applicant for the particular job in question. EEOC v. Humiston-Keeling, Inc., 227 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 2000).
The Supreme Court may also examine the parameters of the defense of undue hardship under the ADA. The Ninth Circuit held that it is the employer's burden to prove undue hardship, and that courts cannot assume that a reasonable accommodation would constitute an undue hardship simply because it violates a workplace seniority policy.
Questions? Call Equip for Equality at (800) 537-2632 (Voice) or (800) 610-2779 (TTY)
