00-1250 U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnet

Listen to this article

“The question is whether a proposed accommodation that would normally be reasonable is rendered unreasonable because the assignment would violate a seniority system’s rules. Ordinarily the answer is ‘yes.’ The statute does not require proof on a case-by-case basis that a seniority system should prevail because it would not be reasonable in the run of cases that the assignment trump such a system’s rules. Analogous case law has recognized the importance of seniority to employee-management relations, finding, e.g., that collectively bargained seniority trumps the need for reasonable accommodation in the linguistically similar Rehabilitation Act, see, e.g., Eckles v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 94 F.3d 1041, 1047-1048. And the relevant seniority system advantages, and related difficulties resulting from violations of seniority rules, are not limited to collectively bargained systems, but also apply to many systems (like the one at issue) unilaterally imposed by management. A typical seniority system provides important employee benefits by creating, and fulfilling, employee expectations of fair, uniform treatment – e.g., job security and an opportunity for steady and predictable advancement based on objective standards – that might be undermined if an employer were required to show more than the system’s existence. Nothing in the statute suggests that Congress intended to undermine seniority systems in such a way.”

228 F.3d 1105, vacated and remanded.

Local effect:

The decision is consistent with current Seventh Circuit law, Eckles v. Consolidated Rail Corp. 94 F.3d 1041 (7th Cir. 1996).

Breyer, J.; Stevens, J., concurring; O’Connor, J., concurring; Scalia, J., dissenting; Souter, J., dissenting.