Maxcene Mays v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 18261, 301 F.3d 866, 13 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 985 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's duty to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act does not require creating a new position, displacing a more qualified applicant for a vacant position, or providing the employee's preferred accommodation; offering a reasonable, though less desirable, alternative fulfills the employer's obligation.
Facts:
- A nurse employed by a Veterans Administration (VA) hospital sustained a permanent back injury while lifting a patient.
- The injury resulted in a permanent medical restriction limiting her to lifting a maximum of 10 pounds and prohibiting any patient lifting.
- After a temporary light-duty position was eliminated for unrelated reasons, she could no longer perform the essential functions of a regular staff nurse.
- The nurse applied for vacant administrative nursing positions that did not involve patient contact but for which she was physically capable.
- The VA did not select her for these positions, instead hiring other applicants it determined were better qualified.
- The VA then reassigned the nurse to a clerical support position which paid a much lower salary, though her net after-tax income remained the same due to workers' compensation benefits.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed separate administrative complaints with the Veterans Administration for racial discrimination and disability discrimination.
- After waiting the required 180 days on her disability complaint, Plaintiff filed suit against the VA in U.S. District Court.
- The VA moved for summary judgment in the district court.
- The district court granted the VA's motion for summary judgment.
- Plaintiff, the appellant, appealed 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:
Does an employer violate the Rehabilitation Act's reasonable accommodation requirement by reassigning a disabled employee to a lower-paying position when the employee can no longer perform her original job and is not the best-qualified candidate for other vacant positions she prefers?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge.
No. The VA did not violate the Rehabilitation Act because an employer is only required to provide a reasonable accommodation, not the employee's ideal accommodation. The court reasoned that the two accommodations preferred by the plaintiff were not required by law. First, her original staff nurse position could not be made accommodating without eliminating essential functions or creating a new 'helper' role for another employee, which the Act does not mandate. Second, for the vacant administrative nursing positions, the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to reassign a disabled employee over a better-qualified applicant. The court, citing EEOC v. Humiston-Keeling, Inc. and analogizing to the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, held that the Act is not a mandatory preference statute. Therefore, the VA's offer of the clerical position, while not ideal for the plaintiff, was a reasonable accommodation under the circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of an employer's duty to reassign a disabled employee as a reasonable accommodation. It firmly establishes that the Rehabilitation Act (and by extension, the ADA) does not require an employer to abandon its legitimate, non-discriminatory hiring policies, such as selecting the most qualified candidate for a position. The opinion also reinforces that the employer's obligation is met by providing a 'reasonable' accommodation, not necessarily the one the employee desires most. By framing the failure to engage in the 'interactive process' as a burden-shifting mechanism rather than an independent violation, the court provides a practical framework that aligns the Seventh Circuit with the majority of other circuits, emphasizing that a lack of process is harmless if no reasonable accommodation was ultimately possible.
