In US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, (122 S.Ct. 1516 (2002)) the United States Supreme Court held that, in most cases, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not require an employer to give a particular position to a disabled employee where another employee is entitled to the position under the employer’s seniority system.
Robert Barnett was injured while working for US Airways as a cargo handler. He invoked his seniority rights to transfer into a mailroom position because it was less physically demanding. After his mailroom position opened for seniority-based employee bidding, Barnett learned that two employees with more seniority planned to bid for his job. Barnett asked US Airways to make an exception to its seniority system and allow him to keep his job in the mailroom as an accommodation to his disability. US Airways refused to make an exception and Barnett lost his job.
Under the ADA, employers must make reasonable accommodations for the physical and mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual unless such accommodations would impose an undue hardship. Reasonable accommodations can include reassignment of the worker to another position. Barnett brought suit for unlawful discrimination, alleging that US Airways’ refusal to assign him the mailroom job amounted to a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation as required by the ADA. The District Court granted summary judgment to US Airways, finding that the alteration of its seniority system policy would result in undue hardship for both US Airways and its non-disabled employees. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the District Court, finding that the existence of a seniority system is just one factor to be used in determining if an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an employer.
The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding that, where a disabled person requests an accommodation which conflicts with an employer’s seniority system, that accommodation is not ordinarily reasonable. The Court noted that, for an employee to overcome an employer’s motion for summary judgment, the employee ordinarily needs only to show that the requested accommodation is reasonable on its face. If the employee makes such a showing, the burden then shifts to the employer to show circumstances exist that would cause undue hardship. However, the Court concluded that these general rules should not apply where the requested accommodation conflicts with an employer’s seniority system.
The Supreme Court commented that seniority systems are important to employee-management relationships. They provide “important employee benefits by creating, and fulfilling, employee expectations of fair, uniform treatment” including “job security and an opportunity for steady and predictable advancement based on objective standards.” The Court concluded that, to require an employer to prove more than the existence of a seniority system would undermine employee “expectations of consistent, uniform treatment.”
The Court held that an employer is entitled to summary judgment where a requested accommodation conflicts with the rules of a seniority system unless an employee can show that special circumstances exist that make the requested accommodation reasonable. One example is where an employer retains the unilateral right to change the seniority system and exercises that right frequently so that employee expectation in the system is diminished and the accommodation of the disabled individual will not make a difference. Another is where a seniority system already has exceptions in place so that the accommodation of a disabled individual will not likely matter. A showing that a special circumstance exists will defeat an employer’s demand for summary judgment.