Etim U. Aka v. Washington Hospital Center
156 F.3d 1284, 8 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1093, 332 U.S. App. D.C. 256 (1998)
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 provide a reasonable accommodation includes reassigning an employee who can no longer perform their job to a vacant position for which they are qualified, which requires more than merely allowing the employee to compete with other applicants. Furthermore, a plaintiff may survive summary judgment in a discrimination case by presenting evidence from which a jury could conclude that they were markedly more qualified than the selected candidate, permitting an inference that the employer's proffered reason for its decision was pretextual.
Facts:
- Etim U. Aka began working for Washington Hospital Center (WHC) as an Operating Room Orderly in 1972, a job requiring heavy lifting.
- While employed at WHC, Aka earned a college degree and a master’s degree in business and public administration with a focus on health service management.
- In 1991, after 19 years of employment, Aka underwent heart bypass surgery, which left him unable to perform his physically demanding orderly job.
- Aka's doctor cleared him to return to work in a position requiring only 'light or moderate' exertion.
- Aka asked WHC to transfer him to a suitable position, but WHC told him it was his responsibility to review job postings and apply for vacant positions.
- Aka applied for a Central Pharmacy Technician position and was interviewed by Dr. Ann Breakenridge.
- Breakenridge hired another hospital employee, Jaime Valenzuela, for the Pharmacy Technician position instead of Aka.
- Valenzuela had worked in the hospital laundry for about a year and had volunteered part-time at a pharmacy for two months; he did not have a college degree.
Procedural Posture:
- Etim U. Aka sued Washington Hospital Center (WHC) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Aka alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including a failure to provide reasonable accommodation.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, WHC, on all of Aka's claims.
- Aka, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- A divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed in part but vacated the summary judgment regarding the Central Pharmacy Technician hiring decision and the reasonable accommodation claim.
- At the request of WHC, the appellee, the D.C. Circuit granted a rehearing en banc on those two claims.
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 the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require an employer, as a reasonable accommodation, to reassign a disabled employee to a vacant position for which they are qualified, potentially giving them priority over other applicants, and can that employee survive summary judgment on a related discrimination claim by showing they were significantly more qualified than the person hired?
Opinions:
Majority - Wald, J.
Yes. The ADA's reasonable accommodation provision requires more than simply allowing a disabled employee to compete for a vacant position; the term 'reassignment' implies an active transfer by the employer. Additionally, a plaintiff can defeat a summary judgment motion by casting sufficient doubt on the employer's proffered nondiscriminatory reason. A jury could reasonably infer discrimination if it finds the plaintiff was significantly better qualified for the job than the successful candidate. In this case, Aka's master's degree in health services and 19 years of hospital experience could lead a jury to believe he was markedly more qualified than Valenzuela. The employer's reliance on a subjective reason like 'enthusiasm' is viewed with caution and does not, as a matter of law, overcome this disparity in qualifications. On the accommodation claim, the court must first determine on remand whether the Collective Bargaining Agreement actually prohibited WHC from reassigning Aka, as a provision specifically for handicapped employees suggests such a reassignment may have been permissible.
Dissenting - Henderson, J.
No. A plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment merely by questioning the employer's reason; under St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, the plaintiff must produce evidence that the reason was a pretext for discrimination. Aka failed to show that WHC's reasons—that Valenzuela had more relevant experience and was more enthusiastic—were false, let alone a cover-up for discrimination. Aka's advanced degrees were not relevant to the listed job qualifications. Regarding the accommodation claim, the ADA is not an affirmative action statute and does not require an employer to give a disabled employee a hiring preference over a more qualified, non-disabled applicant. WHC met its obligation by allowing Aka to apply for the position.
Dissenting - Silberman, J.
No. The majority's holding devolves into a 'pretext-only' standard that allows a plaintiff to get to a jury without any independent evidence of discrimination, effectively creating a wrongful discharge action for any member of a protected class. A plaintiff must always produce independent evidence of discrimination to survive summary judgment. The ADA's 'reassignment' provision, when read in context with other listed accommodations, does not create a preference for disabled employees. It merely obligates an employer to allow a disabled employee to compete for vacant positions on equal terms, not to award them the position over more qualified candidates.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the employer's duty of reasonable accommodation under the ADA within the D.C. Circuit, establishing that 'reassignment' is an affirmative obligation, not a passive permission to apply for jobs. It strengthens the position of disabled employees who can no longer perform their current jobs by requiring employers to actively consider them for vacant positions. The case also lowers the bar for plaintiffs at the summary judgment stage in discrimination cases, allowing a strong showing of superior qualifications to serve as sufficient evidence of pretext, thereby making it easier for such cases to reach a jury.
