Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Airlines, Inc.
26 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1431, 693 F. 3d 760, 2012 WL 3871503 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires an employer to reassign a qualified employee with a disability to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. An employer's policy of merely allowing a disabled employee to compete for a vacant position, even with preferential treatment, is insufficient to satisfy this requirement.
Facts:
- In 2003, United Airlines implemented Reasonable Accommodation Guidelines for employees who, due to disability, could no longer perform their current jobs.
- The guidelines stipulated that transfer to a vacant position was a possible accommodation, but the process was competitive.
- Disabled employees seeking reassignment were not automatically placed into vacant positions for which they were qualified.
- Instead, these employees were given 'preferential treatment,' which included the ability to submit unlimited transfer applications, a guaranteed interview, and priority over a similarly qualified applicant.
- If another applicant was deemed more qualified, that applicant would be hired over the employee seeking accommodation.
Procedural Posture:
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued United Airlines in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
- United Airlines successfully moved to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The district court granted United Airlines' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the court was bound by the Seventh Circuit's precedent in EEOC v. Humiston-Keeling.
- The district court rejected the EEOC's argument that the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett had undermined Humiston-Keeling.
- The EEOC, as the plaintiff, appealed the dismissal 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's policy that requires a disabled employee seeking reassignment to compete for a vacant position, rather than being appointed to it, violate the reasonable accommodation provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Cudahy, Circuit Judge.
Yes. An employer's policy that requires a disabled employee seeking reassignment to compete for a vacant position violates the reasonable accommodation provision of the ADA. The court explicitly overrules its prior precedent in EEOC v. Humiston-Keeling, finding it incompatible with the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett. The Barnett court rejected an 'anti-preference' interpretation of the ADA, clarifying that preferences for disabled employees are sometimes necessary to achieve the statute's goal of equal opportunity. While Barnett carved out a narrow exception for accommodations that violate established seniority systems, a general policy of hiring the 'best-qualified' applicant does not present the same level of hardship. Therefore, reassignment under the ADA means mandatory placement in a vacant position for which the employee is qualified, shifting the burden to the employer to prove undue hardship.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters the landscape of ADA accommodations within the Seventh Circuit by overruling precedent that favored employer discretion in hiring. It establishes that 'reassignment' is not merely a chance to compete but a mandatory duty to place a qualified disabled employee in a vacant role. By distinguishing a 'best-qualified' hiring policy from a formal seniority system, the court narrows the employer's ability to deny reassignment. This ruling strengthens protections for disabled employees and aligns the Seventh Circuit's interpretation of the ADA with that of other circuits, promoting a more uniform and robust application of the law's reasonable accommodation requirement.
