00-2813 Winfrey v. City of Chicago

Listen to this article

“Winfrey also indicated a desire to occupy the position of dispatcher, and – because he was never given a chance to explore this position – he claims the City failed to engage in good faith in an interactive process designed to accommodate him. To make such a claim, Winfrey must identify a vacant dispatcher position and prove he is qualified for it.

“The district court concluded that Winfrey made a sufficient showing that he could perform the essential duties of the dispatcher position. But it found that the City was not required, under the ADA, to assign him to that job because ‘a]n employer is not required to violate the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement to reassign a disabled employee pursuant to the ADA.’ Cochrum v. Old Ben Coal Co., 102 F.3d 908, 912-13 (7th Cir. 1996). It is undisputed that the dispatcher position is covered by the City’s collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters Union. Thus, only those employees represented by that union could bid for the job. Winfrey could therefore bid for the position only if the union agreed not to contest his eligibility. The district court concluded that there was no evidence the union would consent to accepting Winfrey. Winfrey argues that he had presented persuasive evidence on this point: he himself occupied the position from 1987 to 1991. However, he has offered nothing to show that this fact demonstrates that a position is currently available. Complying with the collective bargaining agreement is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory policy, and the City was not required to abandon it in order to accommodate Winfrey’s disability.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Nolan, Magistrate J., Cudahy, J.