Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc.
180 F.3d 1154, 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3824, 9 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 738 (1999)
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 a disabled employee to a vacant position for which they are qualified if the employee can no longer perform the essential functions of their existing job, with or without accommodation. This reassignment is not merely an opportunity to compete with other applicants but is an affirmative obligation to offer the position to the qualified disabled employee, provided it does not cause an undue hardship.
Facts:
- Robert Smith worked for Midland Brake, Inc. for nearly seven years in its light assembly department.
- His work involved regular contact with various chemicals, solvents, and irritants.
- As a result of this exposure, Smith developed chronic dermatitis on his hands and muscular injuries.
- Smith's physicians considered him permanently disabled and restricted his work activities, recommending he avoid all contact with the irritants present in his department.
- Midland Brake was unable to find any assignment within the light assembly department that Smith could perform given his medical restrictions.
- Midland Brake ultimately terminated Smith’s employment due to its inability to accommodate his chronic skin sensitivity in his existing department.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Smith sued Midland Brake, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas for violations of the ADA and other laws.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of Midland Brake, holding that Smith was not a 'qualified individual with a disability' because he had not provided a medical release to return to work.
- Smith, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, but reasoned that Smith was not qualified because no accommodation would allow him to perform his existing job.
- The Tenth Circuit then granted Smith's petition for a rehearing en banc (by the full court) solely on the issue of the ADA's requirements for reassignment.
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 to reassign a disabled employee, who can no longer perform their current job even with accommodation, to a vacant position for which they are qualified, even if another applicant is more qualified for that position?
Opinions:
Majority - Ebel, J.
Yes. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires an employer to offer reassignment to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation of last resort to a qualified employee with a disability who can no longer perform their existing job. The statutory definition of a 'qualified individual with a disability' includes an individual who can perform the essential functions of an employment position they 'hold or desire,' which extends beyond their current job. Furthermore, the ADA's definition of 'reasonable accommodation' explicitly lists 'reassignment to a vacant position.' This obligation requires more than merely allowing the disabled employee to compete for a vacant position; it means the employee is entitled to the position if they are qualified and the reassignment does not impose an undue hardship. To interpret it otherwise would render the reassignment provision redundant, as the ADA already prohibits discrimination in job application procedures. Congress defined discrimination to include the failure to make reasonable accommodations, so this requirement is a core part of the statute's non-discrimination mandate, not a form of affirmative action.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kelly, J.
No. While an employee who needs reassignment may be a 'qualified individual,' the ADA does not require an employer to give that employee a preference for a vacant position over other, more qualified applicants. The ADA is a non-discrimination statute designed to create a level playing field, not a mandatory preference statute that requires affirmative action for individuals with disabilities. Forcing an employer to reassign a minimally qualified disabled employee instead of hiring the best-qualified applicant interferes with legitimate personnel decisions and converts the ADA into a preferential treatment law, which contradicts clear legislative history stating that an employer is free to select the most qualified applicants. The statute's use of 'may include' before listing 'reassignment' indicates it is an option, not a mandatory command in every case, and should not override legitimate, non-discriminatory hiring policies like selecting the best candidate.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies that the ADA's reasonable accommodation of 'reassignment' is a mandatory, affirmative obligation, not a passive one. It establishes that an employer must offer a vacant position to a qualified disabled employee who can no longer perform their original job, effectively giving that employee priority over other applicants. This strengthens protections for existing employees by treating reassignment as a last-resort tool to prevent termination, shifting the focus from mere equal opportunity to an active duty to retain disabled workers. The ruling sets a powerful precedent that distinguishes the rights of existing employees from those of initial job applicants, forcing employers to engage in a more robust interactive process to find alternative employment within the company.
