US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett
152 L. Ed. 2d 589, 2002 U.S. LEXIS 3034, 535 U.S. 391 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's showing that a disabled employee's requested accommodation conflicts with the rules of an established seniority system is ordinarily sufficient to show the accommodation is not 'reasonable' under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The employee may rebut this by showing special circumstances that make an exception to the seniority system reasonable in the particular case.
Facts:
- Robert Barnett worked for US Airways, Inc. in a cargo-handling position and injured his back on the job in 1990.
- Using his seniority rights, Barnett transferred to a less physically demanding mailroom position.
- Under US Airways' established seniority system, the mailroom position periodically became open for bidding by employees based on their seniority.
- In 1992, Barnett learned that at least two employees with more seniority than him intended to bid for the mailroom position.
- Barnett asked US Airways to accommodate his disability by making an exception to the seniority system, which would allow him to remain in the mailroom job.
- After considering the request for five months, US Airways decided not to make an exception to its seniority policy.
- As a result of US Airways' decision, Barnett lost his position in the mailroom.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Barnett sued US Airways, Inc. in a U.S. District Court (trial court), alleging discrimination under the ADA.
- US Airways moved for summary judgment, which the District Court granted in its favor, finding that altering the seniority system would cause undue hardship.
- Barnett, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with US Airways as appellee.
- An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that a seniority system is only one factor to consider in the undue hardship analysis.
- US Airways, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the U.S. Supreme Court granted.
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 require an employer to grant a disabled employee's request for a job reassignment as a 'reasonable accommodation' if the reassignment would violate the rules of an established seniority system?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
No. An employer is ordinarily not required to grant an accommodation that violates the rules of an established seniority system because such a request is not 'reasonable' in the run of cases. The Court established a burden-shifting framework. Initially, an employer's showing that a requested accommodation would violate a seniority system is sufficient to demonstrate the accommodation is unreasonable. Seniority systems provide important benefits by creating and fulfilling employee expectations of fair and uniform treatment regarding job security and advancement, and undermining these expectations would be unreasonable. However, the burden then shifts to the employee, who remains free to show special circumstances that would make an exception reasonable in their particular case. Such circumstances might include evidence that the employer retains the right to unilaterally change the system and exercises it frequently, or that the system already has so many exceptions that one more would not matter.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes, I join the Court's opinion. This concurrence emphasizes that while the Court of Appeals erred in minimizing the relevance of a seniority system to the 'reasonableness' inquiry, it was correct to reject a per se rule that seniority always wins. Important factual questions remain unanswered on the current record, such as the specific reasons the mailroom position became open and the precise impact an exception would have on other employees. On remand, the employee, Barnett, will have the burden of answering these questions to overcome the presumption that the seniority system justified his discharge.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
No, an employer would not be required to grant the accommodation if the seniority system is legally enforceable. I join the Court's opinion to create a majority rule and avoid a stalemate, but I would prefer a different test focused on whether the seniority system is legally enforceable. Under the ADA, reassignment is limited to a 'vacant' position. If a seniority system gives another employee a legally enforceable contractual right to a position, that position is not 'vacant' and thus not available for reassignment. Because US Airways' seniority policy explicitly stated it was not a contract and could be changed at any time, it was not legally enforceable, the position was vacant, and the accommodation was reasonable.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The ADA's reasonable accommodation mandate should never require an employer to make an exception to a bona fide seniority system. The Act requires employers to remove workplace barriers that exist because of a disability. A seniority system is a disability-neutral rule that burdens all employees equally, not a barrier unique to the disabled. The majority's 'special circumstances' exception creates a standardless, litigation-spawning test that wrongly subjects all neutral employment rules to suspension if a court deems it 'reasonable' to do so.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
Yes. The ADA does not contain an explicit exemption for seniority systems, unlike Title VII, and its legislative history indicates Congress did not intend for seniority rules to be determinative. Barnett's request was reasonable because he sought to maintain the status quo, not bump another employee. Furthermore, US Airways' seniority policy was unilaterally imposed and explicitly stated it was not a contract and could be changed at will, meaning it created no firm employee expectations. Therefore, Barnett met his burden of showing his request was reasonable, and the burden should have shifted to US Airways to prove undue hardship.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant, pro-employer rebuttable presumption in ADA reasonable accommodation cases that involve seniority systems. It rejects a per se rule where seniority always trumps accommodation, but it moves away from a pure case-by-case analysis that would place the initial burden on the employer. The creation of the 'special circumstances' exception provides a narrow avenue for employees to challenge the rigid application of seniority rules, but places the burden of proof squarely on them. This framework gives substantial deference to established seniority systems and will likely make it more difficult for employees with disabilities to secure reassignments that conflict with such policies, shifting the focus of litigation to whether an employer's system is truly rigid in practice.
