Cripe v. City of San Jose
261 F.3d 877 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's qualification standard that screens out or tends to screen out a class of individuals with disabilities violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) unless the employer proves the standard is both job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.
Facts:
- The San Jose Police Department had highly desirable 'specialized assignments' (e.g., investigator) and less desirable 'beat-patrol' assignments.
- An 'Officer Transfer Policy,' negotiated with the police union, required officers to have worked as a beat-patrol officer in the year prior to receiving a specialized assignment and to return to patrol duties after three years in such an assignment.
- Six police officers, the plaintiffs, suffered on-the-job injuries (e.g., to their neck and back) that rendered them physically unable to perform the duties of a beat-patrol officer.
- Due to their disabilities, the City placed the officers into a 'Modified Duty Pool' under a policy that restricted them to a limited number of specified, highly undesirable non-patrol positions.
- The plaintiffs alleged that in their modified-duty roles, they were given no real work, subjected to degrading conditions and verbal harassment (being called 'lame,' 'lazy,' 'faker'), and given disadvantageous shifts.
- Because the plaintiffs' disabilities prevented them from serving on beat-patrol, the Officer Transfer Policy categorically barred them from ever competing for any specialized assignments.
- The City also had a practice of requiring all newly promoted sergeants to work for 12 months in a patrol capacity, which the plaintiffs could not fulfill, thereby preventing their promotion.
- One plaintiff, Officer Arvin, was explicitly told by an Assistant Chief that he could not be promoted to Sergeant because he 'couldn't work the streets.'
Procedural Posture:
- Two separate groups of disabled San Jose police officers sued the City of San Jose in U.S. District Court, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- The district court consolidated the two actions.
- All parties filed motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of San Jose.
- The district court reasoned that the plaintiffs were not 'qualified individuals' under the ADA because they could not perform what it deemed an essential function of all police officer positions: effecting a forcible arrest.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 a city's policy that categorically prevents police officers with disabilities from competing for specialized assignments and promotions violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when the officers allege they can perform the essential functions of the desired positions?
Opinions:
Majority - Reinhardt
Yes, the City's policy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court held that summary judgment for the City was improper because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the plaintiffs are 'qualified individuals' and whether the City's discriminatory policies are justified. The court's reasoning was threefold. First, there is a factual dispute as to whether the ability to make a forcible arrest is an 'essential function' of all specialized-assignment positions. The plaintiffs presented evidence, including testimony from a sergeant and a former police chief, that some specialized roles (like fraud investigator or training officer) do not require this capability, creating a triable issue. Second, the 'Officer Transfer Policy' acts as a discriminatory 'qualification standard' that screens out disabled officers. Such a standard is only lawful if it is 'job-related' and 'consistent with business necessity,' a higher bar than the 'undue hardship' standard the City incorrectly argued. The City's justifications for the policy, such as officer training and patrol readiness, fail this test because they are irrelevant for disabled officers who can never return to patrol. Third, providing undesirable 'modified-duty' assignments does not satisfy the ADA's mandate, as the Act protects a disabled person's right to compete for the position they desire, and EEOC guidance prohibits segregating disabled employees into undesirable roles.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the distinction between the 'undue hardship' standard for reasonable accommodations and the more stringent 'business necessity' defense for discriminatory qualification standards under the ADA. It establishes that employers cannot use blanket policies or job descriptions to define a function as 'essential' for a wide range of positions without a specific, fact-based inquiry for each job. The ruling strengthens protections for disabled employees by affirming their right to compete for all available positions for which they are qualified, not just segregated or less desirable alternatives. It also limits the ability of employers to use collective bargaining agreements as a shield for discriminatory practices that are not related to bona fide seniority systems.
