Arthur Ozlowski v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General
237 F.3d 837, 11 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 671, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 604 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Rehabilitation Act, an employer is not liable for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation of reassignment unless the employee demonstrates that a vacant, funded position existed for which they were qualified.
Facts:
- Arthur Ozlowski worked for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) starting in 1975 and suffered from arachnoiditis, a degenerative spinal disease.
- In 1993, Ozlowski's supervisory position was eliminated during a reorganization, and he was eventually assigned to a facility in Fox Valley, Illinois.
- Due to his worsening condition and upcoming knee surgeries, Ozlowski was given temporary assignments at other facilities instead of reporting to Fox Valley.
- In early 1996, the USPS informed Ozlowski his temporary detail was ending and he must report to his permanent position at Fox Valley.
- Ozlowski then formally requested a reasonable accommodation, stating his medical restrictions prevented him from making the long commute to Fox Valley and performing non-sedentary work.
- Ozlowski specifically requested a transfer to the Chicago Bulk Mail Center (BMC) and identified a mail flow controller position as a potential accommodation.
- The USPS had placed an informal hold on filling the mail flow controller position pending a nationwide computer system update.
- In August 1996, after being presented with several options by the USPS, Ozlowski applied for and was granted disability retirement.
Procedural Posture:
- Arthur Ozlowski filed a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- After the EEOC issued its final decision, Ozlowski filed a complaint against the Postmaster General in U.S. District Court.
- The Postal Service moved for summary judgment, and Ozlowski filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
- The district court granted the Postal Service's motion for summary judgment and denied Ozlowski's motion.
- Ozlowski, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer violate the Rehabilitation Act by failing to reassign a disabled employee when the employee fails to produce evidence of a specific, vacant position for which they were qualified?
Opinions:
Majority - Manion, J.
No. An employer does not violate the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation of reassignment where the employee cannot meet their burden of showing that a vacant position existed for which they were qualified. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to identify a vacant position. Ozlowski failed to meet this burden. His own conclusory statements about available jobs were insufficient. For the 'schemes analyst' position, he was not qualified because he could not perform the essential functions, such as climbing ladders, and an employer is not required to reallocate essential functions. For the 'mail flow controller' position, although Ozlowski was technically qualified, the position was not truly 'vacant' because the USPS had put an informal hold on filling it for legitimate business reasons unrelated to Ozlowski's disability. An employer is not required to fill a position it has otherwise chosen not to fill. Because no vacant position was identified, the court does not need to address whether there was a breakdown in the interactive process.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant burden of proof placed on employees in failure-to-accommodate cases. It clarifies that the employee, not the employer, must identify a specific vacant position for which they are qualified. The case also narrowly defines what constitutes a 'vacant' position, establishing that a role an employer has put on hold for legitimate, non-discriminatory business reasons is not considered vacant for the purpose of reassignment as a reasonable accommodation. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed on such claims without concrete evidence of an available and suitable alternative role.
