Michael Dunderdale v. United Airlines, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20981, 807 F.3d 849, 32 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 621 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide a reasonable accommodation that would violate the rules of a legitimate, established seniority system. Additionally, an employee seeking reassignment to a new position as an accommodation bears the burden of demonstrating that a vacancy in that position existed at the time of the request.
Facts:
- Michael Dunderdale worked for United Airlines, Inc. as a ramp serviceman, a position governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that awarded work assignments based on seniority.
- In 2002 and 2004, Dunderdale sustained back injuries at work, resulting in permanent restrictions preventing him from lifting more than 30 pounds, driving United vehicles, or bending, stooping, or kneeling.
- From 2005 to 2011, United accommodated Dunderdale by assigning him to the 'Matrix position', a sedentary computer-based job that, by company policy, was reserved for ramp servicemen with permanent work restrictions.
- In 2010, United announced a policy change, effective May 2011, to open the Matrix position to all ramp servicemen for bidding based on the CBA's seniority system, in order to create a more consistent process.
- In April 2011, United informed Dunderdale that he lacked sufficient seniority to retain the Matrix position under the new bidding policy and would be placed on Extended Illness Status (EIS).
- During the April 2011 meeting, Dunderdale requested assignment to one of three 'no-bid' positions but was told that none were vacant.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Dunderdale filed suit against United Airlines, Inc. in federal district court for discrimination and retaliation under the ADA.
- In the district court proceedings, Dunderdale waived his retaliation claim.
- United moved for summary judgment on Dunderdale's failure to accommodate claim.
- The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of United.
- Dunderdale, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision 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 fail to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA by adhering to its seniority system, which results in a disabled employee being displaced from a position, and by not reassigning that employee to another position for which the employee has not shown a vacancy?
Opinions:
Majority - Bauer, Circuit Judge.
No. An employer does not fail to provide a reasonable accommodation under these circumstances. The ADA does not require an employer to violate a bona fide seniority system to accommodate a disabled employee. Citing the Supreme Court case US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, the court held that an accommodation is presumptively unreasonable if it contravenes the rules of a seniority system. Dunderdale failed to demonstrate 'special circumstances' to overcome this presumption; the fact that United previously reserved the position for disabled employees did not undermine the legitimate employee expectations created once the position was subjected to the formal seniority system. Furthermore, United was not required to reassign Dunderdale to a 'no-bid' position because the duty to reassign only extends to vacant positions. The burden was on Dunderdale to prove a vacancy existed at the time of his removal or request, and he failed to do so; showing that positions 'changed hands' over a two-year period is insufficient.
Dissenting - Ripple, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether United failed to reasonably accommodate Dunderdale. United's long-standing practice of reserving the Matrix position for employees with restrictions created the exact kind of 'special circumstance' contemplated in Barnett. The employees' expectation was that this specific position operated outside the normal seniority system, and United's unilateral decision to change this practice should not defeat Dunderdale's accommodation request. Additionally, a jury could find that United caused the breakdown of the interactive process. After Dunderdale requested reassignment, United's perfunctory 'no' and instructions to search a website did not fulfill its duty to take an active, good-faith role in identifying alternative positions for him.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant deference courts afford to bona fide seniority systems in ADA reasonable accommodation cases, solidifying the precedent set by US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett. It clarifies that an employer's past voluntary practice of creating an exception to a seniority system does not necessarily establish a 'special circumstance' that obligates them to continue that exception indefinitely. The ruling also places a clear and specific burden on the employee to identify a specific, existing vacancy at the time of their reassignment request, making it more difficult for employees to prevail on claims that an employer failed to reassign them.
