Cheryl A. Gile v. United Airlines, Incorporated
1996 WL 498621, 95 F.3d 492 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employer's duty to reasonably accommodate a disabled employee who can no longer perform the essential functions of their current job may require reassignment to a vacant position in a different department for which the employee is qualified.
Facts:
- In 1984, United Airlines, Inc. hired Cheryl Gile as a data-entry operator.
- In January 1989, United transferred Gile to the night shift, where she remained.
- By 1992, Gile developed depression, anxiety, and a sleep disorder, which a social worker attributed to her night-shift work schedule.
- On August 28, 1992, Gile informed United of her disability and requested a medical leave of absence.
- While on leave, Gile's social worker informed United that her condition was related to the night shift and requested a shift change.
- Gile personally told United's in-house doctor that she could not work the night shift and was willing to take any lateral move to a different department.
- United did not reassign Gile, instead placing her on unpaid authorized leave until she returned to work in April 1994.
Procedural Posture:
- Cheryl Gile filed a complaint against United Airlines, Inc. in federal district court, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- During discovery, Gile requested documents related to all vacant positions in United's Chicago metropolitan area facilities.
- United objected and produced documents relating only to vacancies in Gile's specific position and department, plus a few positions to which she had previously requested a transfer.
- Gile filed a motion to compel production of the full range of requested documents.
- The district court denied Gile's motion to compel, limiting discovery to the documents United had voluntarily produced.
- United subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no proof of a suitable vacant position.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of United.
- Gile appealed both the discovery order and the grant of summary 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:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), is an employer's duty to provide a reasonable accommodation through 'reassignment to a vacant position' limited to the employee's current department or positions to which they previously requested a transfer?
Opinions:
Majority - Kanne, Circuit Judge
No. An employer's duty under the ADA to reassign a disabled employee to a vacant position is not limited to the employee's current department and may extend to any vacant position within the company for which the employee is qualified. The court's reasoning is based on the plain language of the ADA, its legislative history, and EEOC interpretive guidance. The ADA explicitly lists 'reassignment to a vacant position' as a form of reasonable accommodation. The EEOC's guidance implies that this can include reassignment to a wholly different position, even in a different facility, and that reassignment should be considered when accommodation within the employee's current role would impose an undue hardship. This interpretation is supported by legislative history stating a transfer may be necessary when an employee 'can no longer perform the essential functions of the job that she or he has held.' The court distinguished older Rehabilitation Act cases that held otherwise, noting that the law has since been amended to align with the ADA's broader standards. Therefore, the district court's decision to limit discovery based on a narrow interpretation of this duty was an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of an employer's duty to reassign under the ADA, establishing that the search for a vacant position cannot be narrowly confined to the employee's current department. It broadens the scope of relevant discovery for plaintiffs in ADA cases, allowing them to seek information about vacancies across the entire company. The ruling places a greater affirmative burden on employers to identify alternative employment opportunities for disabled employees who can no longer perform their original jobs, thereby strengthening employee protections against termination due to disability.
Unlock the full brief for Cheryl A. Gile v. United Airlines, Incorporated