James Dalton v. Subaru-Isuzu Automotive, Inc.
7 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1872, 141 F.3d 667, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 5990 (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 reasonable accommodation requires it to engage in an interactive process when an employee proposes a specific accommodation. This duty also includes considering reassignment to a vacant position, but does not require the employer to violate a legitimate, non-discriminatory policy, such as one reserving a temporary light-duty program for employees with temporary disabilities.
Facts:
- Subaru-Isuzu Automotive, Inc. (SIA) employed numerous individuals as 'Production Associates' at its manufacturing plant in Lafayette, Indiana.
- Nine production associates, including James Dalton and Arnold Rainwater, developed permanent, work-related repetitive stress injuries that resulted in medical restrictions on their work activities.
- SIA placed the injured employees on disability leave, informing them that no jobs were available that fit their permanent restrictions.
- While on leave, Dalton suggested to an SIA manager that he could perform his former job with a step stool equipped with a guard rail, but the manager did not respond to the proposal.
- Rainwater also suggested to an SIA human resources employee that he could return to his former position if provided with a step stool, but SIA did not follow up on his suggestion.
- SIA maintained a formal light-duty program, but its policy restricted participation to employees with temporary disabilities who were expected to recover, typically for a maximum of 90 days.
- The other seven permanently disabled employees were aware of positions filled by temporary workers and light-duty jobs that they believed they could perform despite their restrictions.
- Between September and November 1993, around the time discrimination charges were being filed, SIA recalled all nine employees to work in modified positions.
Procedural Posture:
- Sixteen employees filed a lawsuit against Subaru-Isuzu Automotive, Inc. (SIA) in federal district court, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and seeking class certification.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and severed the individual cases.
- SIA filed motions for summary judgment against the individual claims of the nine plaintiffs who are appellants in this case.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of SIA on all nine claims.
- The nine plaintiffs appealed the district court's grants of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which consolidated the appeals.
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 Americans with Disabilities Act's (ADA) reasonable accommodation requirement by failing to engage in an interactive process after an employee proposes a specific accommodation, or by refusing to reassign a permanently disabled employee to a position within a light-duty program reserved for temporarily disabled workers?
Opinions:
Majority - Wood, J.
Yes, in part, and No, in part. An employer violates the ADA by failing to engage in the interactive process regarding an employee's specific accommodation request, but does not violate the ADA by declining to reassign a permanently disabled employee to a position governed by a legitimate policy reserving it for temporarily disabled workers. For plaintiffs Dalton and Rainwater, a genuine issue of material fact exists because they proposed a specific, concrete accommodation (a step stool) to SIA officials, and SIA failed to engage with the proposal. By not responding, SIA 'dropped the ball' on its obligation to participate in the interactive process. For the remaining seven plaintiffs, their claims fail because the duty to reassign does not compel an employer to abandon its legitimate, non-discriminatory company policies. SIA's policy of limiting its light-duty program to employees with temporary disabilities is a bona fide policy. Requiring SIA to convert these temporary positions into permanent ones for these plaintiffs would be an undue burden and is not required by the ADA. Furthermore, these plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of specific vacant positions held by temporary workers for which they were qualified.
Concurring - Evans, J.
Yes, in part, and No, in part. While agreeing with the majority's conclusion, the reasoning for affirming summary judgment against the seven plaintiffs should also include that they are not 'disabled' as defined by the ADA. These plaintiffs, most of whom have carpal tunnel syndrome, have a physical impairment, but that alone does not mean they are substantially limited in the major life activity of working. Finding them disabled under the Act creates an anomaly where workers with the same condition are considered disabled in the Seventh Circuit but not in others, such as the Sixth Circuit, creating a circuit split.
Analysis:
This decision provides critical guidance on the scope of an employer's duties under the ADA. It reinforces that the 'interactive process' is a mandatory, two-way street; an employer cannot simply ignore an employee's specific and plausible accommodation request. The case also clarifies the limits of the duty to reassign, establishing that employers may maintain legitimate, non-discriminatory policies, such as reserving temporary light-duty jobs for temporarily injured workers. This holding gives employers a degree of certainty that they are not required to create new permanent positions or fundamentally alter existing, bona fide programs to accommodate a permanently disabled employee, thereby balancing the employee's rights with the employer's operational needs.
