Employment – ADA — accommodation

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Employment – ADA — accommodation

The ADA mandates that an employer appoint employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to that employer.

“The EEOC argues, and we agree, that the Mays Court incorrectly asserted that a best-qualified selection policy is essentially the same as a seniority system. In equating the two, the Mays Court so enlarged the narrow, fact-specific exception set out in Barnett as to swallow the rule. While employers may prefer to hire the best qualified applicant, the violation of a best-qualified selection policy does not involve the property-rights and administrative concerns (and resulting burdens) presented by the violation of a seniority policy. To strengthen this critique, the EEOC points out the relative rarity of seniority systems and the distinct challenges of mandating reassignment in a system where employees are already entitled to particular positions based on years of employment.”

“The Supreme Court has found that accommodation through appointment to a vacant position is reasonable. Absent a showing of undue hardship, an employer must implement such a reassignment policy. The Mays Court understandably erred in suggesting that deviation from a best-qualified selection policy always represented such a hardship.”

Reversed and Remanded.

11-1774 EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc.

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