F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 1 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH W. ALDRICH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE BOEING COMPANY, a

Delaware Corporation,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-3413

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Kansas

(D.C. No. 95-CV-1083)

Albert F. Kuhl, Law Offices of Albert F. Kuhl, Lenexa, Kansas, for the Plaintiff -

Appellee.

Mary K. Babcock (Trisha A. Thelen with her on the brief) Foulston & Siefkin,

Wichita, Kansas, for the Defendant - Appellee.

Before PORFILIO , MCKAY and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

LUCERO , Circuit Judge.

This case presents a novel question: May an impairment be substantially

limiting for the purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42
1

 Plaintiff also brought a retaliatory discharge claim pursuant to both the

ADA and Kansas state law. He does not, however, appeal the district court’s

grant of summary judgment as to that claim. 

- 2 -

U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, before the date a permanent disability rating has been

issued by the treating physician? Answering this question in the affirmative, we

reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.

I

Kenneth Aldrich, a former employee of The Boeing Company, appeals the

district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Boeing. The district

court held that Aldrich was judicially estopped from pursuing a claim under the

ADA and, alternatively, that he had failed to establish that he was a qualified

individual with a disability. 1

Aldrich was an assembly worker at Boeing’s facility in Wichita, Kansas,

from September 29, 1988, until he was laid off on June 8, 1993. Ten months

prior to being laid off, Aldrich informed Boeing’s Central Medical Department

that he was experiencing pain in his right hand and was having difficulty using

hand tools. He was referred to Dr. Harry Morris, an orthopaedic surgeon, for

evaluation.

Dr. Morris examined Aldrich in August 1992 and made a preliminary

diagnosis of “[c]umulative trauma syndrome manifesting as flexor tendon

tenosynovitis.” Appellee’s Supp. App. at 249. Dr. Morris determined Aldrich
- 3 -

was unable to return to work and signed a medical leave of absence form,

scheduling him for reevaluation in four weeks. At two subsequent evaluations in

September and October, Dr. Morris noted that Aldrich’s condition had improved;

nevertheless, he extended Aldrich’s medical leave of absence.

On November 17, Dr. Morris released Aldrich to return to work, limiting

his use of power tools to four hours a day for the first week, but providing for a

gradual increase in usage over the course of the following two weeks. Upon

returning to work, however, Aldrich was informed by his supervisor that there

was no work he could do with those medical restrictions, and was referred to the

Personnel Department, where he was immediately placed on medical leave. For a

brief period in early December, he was given a work assignment at Boeing’s

Facilities Department as a member of the “Warn Pool.” According to Boeing, the

Warn Pool was created to hold employees during the federally mandated sixty-day

notice period prior to an anticipated layoff. Boeing removed Aldrich from this

position when it discovered that he was not subject to layoff and placed him back

on medical leave of absence.

Dr. Morris continued to treat Aldrich and evaluate him on a monthly basis. 

On April 7, 1993, Dr. Morris rated Aldrich as 15% permanently partially

impaired. He wrote: “It is my impression that the patient can return to work but

he must be in a job position where he has no rivetting [sic], bucking or power
- 4 -

equipment use. There should be no repetitive grasping, gripping, pushing or

pulling as well.” Appellee’s Supp. App. at 256. Aldrich provided Boeing with

Dr. Morris’s report on April 19. 

Approximately one week before he provided this permanent disability

rating to his employer, Aldrich was informed that Boeing had declared a surplus

in his job code and that he would be laid off on June 8, 1993. Three weeks prior

to plaintiff’s scheduled termination, Boeing’s Accommodation Review Board met

to determine whether Aldrich’s permanent restrictions could be accommodated by

the company. The Board determined that the limitations Dr. Morris had imposed

on Aldrich prevented him from doing his current job, with or without

accommodation, and that no other positions were available at that time. The

Board thus decided that Aldrich would remain on medical leave of absence until

he was terminated on June 8.

During the course of these events, Aldrich applied for disability benefits

from several sources. On October 17, 1992, he filed a workers’ compensation

claim under Kansas law which was eventually settled in 1995 for $30,000. Four

months later, Aldrich applied for permanent and total disability benefits under a

private disability plan offered by Boeing. His application for benefits was

approved in March 1994.

II
2

 Specifically, Boeing argues that Aldrich is estopped because he testified

at the workers’ compensation settlement hearing as follows:

MR. BYERS [Attorney for Boeing]: Finally, I just wanted to

make sure you understand and you agree that the settlement today for

$30,000.00 to be paid in a lump sum is based on the fact and the

understanding that your work restrictions are permanent, meaning

that they won’t be changed or lifted, and that these restrictions

prevent you from performing the essential functions of the job as a

sheet metal mechanic with or without accommodation?

[Kenneth Aldrich]: Yes.

Appellee’s Supp. App. at 228.

- 5 -

Noting that Aldrich filed for and received permanent and total disability

benefits under Boeing’s private disability plan, the district court held that his

ADA claim was barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. Boeing insists that

Aldrich’s lawsuit is also barred by this doctrine because of his claim for

permanent and total disability benefits under Kansas workers’ compensation law

and because of plaintiff’s testimony at a settlement hearing regarding this claim. 2

We reject both views. 

In Rascon v. U S West Communications , No. 96-2194, 1998 WL 223465

(10th Cir. May 6, 1998), this circuit recently held that the application for, or

receipt of, social security disability benefits does not estop a plaintiff from

pursuing a claim under the ADA. See id. at *6. The logic behind eschewing

judicial estoppel of an ADA claim even when the plaintiff has applied for or
- 6 -

received disability benefits is that “the ADA takes into consideration whether an

individual with a disability can work given reasonable accommodation . The

Social Security Act, on the other hand, does not take into consideration whether

an accommodation would render the individual able to perform a job.” Id. at *7

(emphasis added) (citations omitted). Consequently, claims for social security

benefits, because granted without regard to reasonable accommodation, are not

necessarily inconsistent with a discrimination claim pursuant to the ADA. See id.

It follows that, Aldrich is not estopped from pursuing his ADA claim merely

because he applied for and received benefits under Boeing’s private disability

plan and the Kansas workers’ compensation statute—those benefits are also

awarded without regard to reasonable accommodation. Compare Boeing,

Disability and Life Insurance Plans 8 (1990) (defining permanent and total

disability for purposes of Boeing’s private disability plan), in Appellee’s Supp.

App. at 186, and Kan. Stat. Ann. § 44-510c(a)(2) (1993) (defining “permanent

total disability” under workers’ compensation statute), with 42 U.S.C. §

423(d)(2)(A) (defining “disability” for purposes of social security disability

benefits). 

Boeing argues that plaintiff should nonetheless be estopped from pursuing

his ADA claim because he testified at his workers’ compensation settlement

hearing that he could not perform his job with or without reasonable
- 7 -

accommodation. Were we to adopt Boeing’s approach, however, we would

“discourage the determination of cases on the basis of the true facts as they might

be established ultimately.” United States v. 49.01 Acres of Land , 802 F.2d 387,

390 (10th Cir. 1986) (quoting Parkinson v. California Co. , 233 F.2d 432, 438

(10th Cir. 1956)). The Federal Rules of Evidence well provide the means with

which to confront plaintiff with such inconsistency. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)

(permitting introduction in evidence of prior admission by party-opponent). Thus

Aldrich’s testimony “may constitute evidence relevant to a determination of

whether the plaintiff is a ‘qualified individual with a disability,’” Rascon , 1998

WL 223465, at *9, but it is not dispositive.

Benefit determinations under the Kansas workers’ compensation statute are

made without regard to reasonable accommodation. Thus, Aldrich’s admission at

the settlement hearing was not relevant to the outcome of the proceedings. We

see no reason to deviate from Rascon ’s logic that “statements made in connection

with an application for . . . disability benefits cannot be an automatic bar to a

disability claim under the ADA” when such benefits are granted without regard to

reasonable accommodation. Id.

III

The ADA provides that “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a

qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual
- 8 -

in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of

employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and

privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). A “qualified individual with a

disability” is defined as “an individual with a disability who, with or without

reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the

employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. §

12111(8). To establish a prima facie case under the Act, plaintiff must therefore

demonstrate “(1) that he is ‘disabled’ within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that he

is qualified—with or without reasonable accommodation; and (3) that he was

discriminated against because of his disability.” Siemon v. AT&T Corp. , 117

F.3d 1173, 1175 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing White v. York Int’l Corp. , 45 F.3d 357,

360-61 (10th Cir. 1995)). 

A

The ADA defines the term “disability” as “(A) a physical or mental

impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of

such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as

having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). Plaintiff contends that he

qualified as disabled under the first part of this definition on November 17,

1992—the date Dr. Morris released him to work with restrictions following the
3

 Plaintiff proffers an alternative argument, asserting that Boeing knew he

was disabled or regarded him as having a disability as of January 20, 1993, the

date he was first assessed by the Accommodation Review Board. This claim is

wholly without merit. Boeing presented uncontroverted documentation

establishing that the January 20 review was scheduled for the purpose of

accommodating permanent limitations unrelated to the diagnosis of flexor

tenosynovitis. See Appellee’s Supp. App. at 468, 532-33. 

4

 The district court’s analysis was limited to whether the original expected

duration of plaintiff’s impairment precluded it from being “substantially limiting”

as required under the definition of disability at issue in this case. See 42 U.S.C. §

12102(2)(A). Because Boeing does not challenge that flexor tenosynovitis is an

impairment or that a major life activity was affected, we do not address those

elements of the definition for the purposes of this summary judgment appeal, and

therefore limit our analysis to whether a temporary impairment can be

substantially limiting.

- 9 -

initial diagnosis of flexor tenosynovitis. 3 The district court rejected that

contention, finding instead that he was suffering from a “transient nonpermanent

condition” and, accordingly, that his impairment was not substantially limiting. 

Appellant’s App. at 875 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)). 4

While not defined by statute, the regulations implementing the ADA define

the term “substantially limits” as: 

(i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in

the general population can perform; or 

(ii) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration

under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity

as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the

average person in the general population can perform that same

major life activity. 
- 10 -

29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). Several factors are relevant to the determination of

whether an impairment is substantially limiting, including: “(i) The nature and

severity of the impairment; (ii) The duration or expected duration of the

impairment; and (iii) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected

permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” 29 C.F.R. §

1630.2(j)(2). Although “temporary, non-chronic impairments of short duration,

with little or no long term or permanent impact, are usually not disabilities,” 29

C.F.R. pt. 1630 app., § 1630.2(j) (emphasis added), “an impairment does not

necessarily have to be permanent to rise to the level of a disability. Some

conditions may be long-term, or potentially long-term, in that their duration is

indefinite and unknowable or is expected to be at least several months. Such

conditions, if severe, may constitute disabilities,” EEOC, Interpretive Manual

(1995), reprinted in 2 EEOC Compliance Manual § 902.4(d), at 902-30 (BNA

1997) (“ EEOC Compliance Manual ”).

Boeing’s insistence that it had no duty to accommodate plaintiff under the

ADA until plaintiff’s doctor issued a permanent disability rating and restrictions

in April 1993 is incorrect. To the extent that Boeing argues that we should adopt

a per se rule that an impairment may not be regarded as a disability until it is

rendered “permanent” by either a doctor’s rating or permanent restrictions, it

misconstrues the law. Whether an impairment “substantially limits” a major life
- 11 -

activity depends on the individual and the impairment. Such determinations are

not susceptible to per se rules; they must be made on a case-by-case basis. See 29

C.F.R. pt. 1630 app., § 1630.2(j) (“The determination of whether an individual

has a disability is not necessarily based on the name or diagnosis of the

impairment the person has, but rather on the effect of that impairment on the life

of the individual.”). The regulations and the EEOC’s interpretive guidelines

clearly state that an impairment need not be permanent in order to rise to the level

of a disability. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)(iii); EEOC Compliance Manual §

902.4(d), at 902-30. Thus, the issuance of a permanent disability rating in April

1993 does not necessarily answer the question of whether plaintiff’s impairment

previously qualified as a “disability.”

Plaintiff argues that Boeing had an ADA duty of accommodation on

November 17, 1992, “when he was released to work by Dr. Morris with

restrictions.” Appellant’s Br. at 23-24. We disagree. Dr. Morris’s evaluation on

that date anticipated that, by applying a progressive work schedule, plaintiff

would return to full working capacity within three weeks. Because Aldrich’s

impairment was then characterized by his own doctor as being of short duration

and negligible long-term impact, we reject Aldrich’s argument that his

impairment was substantially limiting as of November 17, 1992.
- 12 -

From December 9, 1992, however, Aldrich’s medical evaluations become

considerably less optimistic. On that date, Dr. Morris wrote: “I think at this point

with this individual we’re going to find he is just not going to be able to do

repetitive type activities.” Appellee’s Supp. App. at 253. Two months later, Dr.

Morris referred Aldrich to a Dr. Gluck for a second opinion. Dr. Gluck wrote: “I

think that he has undergone [an] appropriate amount of conservative treatment

with continuing significant symptoms. I think therefore he would be a good

candidate for forearm fasciotomy.” Id. at 254. One month later, Dr. Morris again

evaluated Aldrich, stating: 

As long as he watches what he does and utilizes some work

modification and minimal intensive activity he does fairly well. As

soon as he goes over that line he begins to have problems. . . . As far

as work is concerned he is certainly going to have difficulty going

back to what he previously did. I think that at this point, then, we

will state he has reached his maximum medical benefit and we will

go ahead and rate him. 

Id. at 255. Boeing Central Medical received copies of each of these evaluations.

Although none of these medical evaluations explicitly labels Aldrich’s

condition as “permanent,” each constitutes evidence sufficient to find that

plaintiff’s impairment had become substantially limiting. Based on the Morris

and Gluck statements, a reasonable jury could conclude that, at some point on or

after December 9, 1992, Aldrich’s flexor tenosynovitis was a severe condition

that was permanent or was expected to persist on a long-term basis because its
- 13 -

anticipated duration was indefinite, unknowable, or was expected to be at least

several months. See EEOC Compliance Manual § 902.4(d), at 902-30; cf. Katz v.

City Metal Co., 87 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 1996) (discussing plaintiff’s ability to

show disability in light of EEOC interpretive guidelines). The district court thus

erred in concluding as a matter of law that plaintiff could not have been disabled

under the ADA until his permanent disability rating was issued in April 1993.

B

In order to defeat summary judgment, Aldrich must show not only that he is

disabled, but also that he is a “qualified individual.” To determine whether an

individual is qualified under the ADA:

First, we must determine whether the individual could perform the

essential functions of the job. . . . Second, if (but only if) we

conclude that the individual is not able to perform the essential

functions of the job, we must determine whether any reasonable

accommodation by the employer would enable him to perform those

functions.

White, 45 F.3d at 361-62 (quoting Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385, 1393-

94 (5th Cir. 1993)).

Although Aldrich concedes that he was unable to perform the essential

functions of his job, he insists he would have been able to do so with reasonable

accommodation. Aldrich brings in support a report prepared by a certified

professional ergonomist which concludes that modifications to his work

environment and/or ergonomic training would have allowed him to perform the
5

 The remaining twenty-three jobs Aldrich proffers would not be

reasonable accommodations for different reasons. Boeing presented unrebutted

affidavits and supporting documentation indicating that no open requisitions

existed from November 17, 1992, to June 8, 1993, for sixteen of the jobs. See

Appellee’s Supp. App. at 144-45, 150-57, 162-63. Boeing is not required to

create positions merely to accommodate Aldrich. See White , 45 F.3d at 362

(citing 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630 app., § 1630.2(o)). Neither was Boeing obligated to

transfer plaintiff to four of the other remaining positions—Plumber Maintenance

B, A, and Special, and Millwright B—because transfer to any of those positions

would have constituted a promotion. See 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630 app., § 1630.2(o)

(“[A]n employer is not required to promote an individual with a disability as an

accommodation.”). Finally, had Boeing transferred Aldrich to any of the last

three disputed jobs—Maintenance Oiler, Assembler Sub-Assembly B, and

Assembler Installer General B—it would have violated the seniority provisions of

the collective bargaining agreement. This is not required by the ADA. See

Milton v. Scrivner, Inc. , 53 F.3d 1118, 1125 (10th Cir. 1995) (holding transfer to

another job that would violate seniority rights under collective bargaining

agreement unreasonable); see also Kralik v. Durban , 130 F.3d 76, 83 (3d Cir.

(continued...)

- 14 -

essential functions of his original job. The report also states that Boeing could

have accommodated Aldrich by transferring him to one of several positions within

his skill and grade level. 

Viewing the factual record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we

see a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether work modifications

and/or ergonomic training were reasonable accommodations that would have

permitted plaintiff to return to his original job as an assembly worker. We also

find evidentiary support for plaintiff’s argument that there existed two other

positions to which he could have been reassigned as a reasonable

accommodation.5 We consider Boeing’s statements that employees with
5

(...continued)

1997) (“[A]n accommodation to one employee which violates the seniority rights

of other employees in a collective bargaining agreement simply is not

reasonable.”); Foreman v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. , 117 F.3d 800, 810 (5th Cir.

1997) (“Following the other circuits which have considered this issue, we hold

that the ADA does not require an employer to take action inconsistent with the

contractual rights of other workers under a collective bargaining agreement.”);

Eckles v. Consolidated Rail Corp. , 94 F.3d 1041, 1051 (7th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he

ADA does not require disabled individuals to be accommodated by sacrificing the

collectively bargained, bona fide seniority rights of other employees.”); Benson v.

Northwest Airlines, Inc. , 62 F.3d 1108, 1114 (8th Cir. 1995) (“The ADA does not

require that [the employer] take action inconsistent with the contractual rights of

other workers under a collective bargaining agreement.”); cf. Shea v. Tisch , 870

F.2d 786, 790 (1st Cir. 1989) (employer “not required [under Rehabilitation Act]

to accommodate plaintiff further by placing him in a different position since to do

so would violate the rights of other employees under the collective bargaining

agreement”); Carter v. Tisch , 822 F.2d 465, 469 (4th Cir. 1987) (duty to reassign

under Rehabilitation Act “would not defeat the provisions of a collective

bargaining agreement unless it could be shown that the agreement had the effect

or the intent of discrimination”). But see Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr. , 116 F.3d

876, 894-897 (D.C. Cir.) (holding terms of collective bargaining agreement only a

factor in weighing reasonableness of accommodation), reh’g en banc granted and

judgment vacated , 124 F.3d 1302 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

6

 Despite Boeing’s general contention that these records are inaccurate in

places, see Appellant’s Supp. App. at 144, 455, 461, it failed to submit any

evidence that this particular entry was incorrect.

- 15 -

permanent medical restrictions were eligible to be assigned to Factory Service

Attendant A positions and several were placed in those positions in December

1992 and January 1993. See Appellee’s Supp. App. at 169-170. Additionally,

according to Boeing records, a requisition for a Factory Clerk C position was

initiated on November 18, 1992 and filled on February 1, 1993. Id. at 151, 159.6

Although the records indicate that this position may have been filled by an
7

 In Hudson v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. , 87 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th

Cir. 1996), this court held that “a reasonable allowance of time for medical care

and treatment may, in appropriate circumstances, constitute a reasonable

accommodation.” Boeing’s decision to place Aldrich on medical leave of absence

may have been such an accommodation. See id. at 1168-69; see also Burch v.

Coca-Cola Co. , 119 F.3d 305, 318 n.11 (5th Cir. 1997) (employer’s decision to

(continued...)

- 16 -

employee with Category A rights, they are inconclusive on this point because the

individual who filled this position is unnamed. See id. Even if the position was

filled by someone with Category A rights in February, that does not defeat

plaintiff’s claim that the Factory Clerk C position was available as an

accommodation prior to February. Because Category A rights do not allow one

employee to bump another, it is of no consequence that someone with such rights

ultimately filled the position. Plaintiff may prevail so long as he was “disabled”

prior to February 1 and he is able to show that transfer to the Factory Clerk C

position was a reasonable accommodation.

Because we conclude that a reasonable jury could determine that plaintiff’s

impairment was substantially limiting for purposes of the ADA, we must also

conclude that plaintiff may have been eligible for a Factory Service Attendant A

or a Factory Clerk C position as early as December 1992. A genuine issue of

material fact remains as to whether reasonable accommodation was feasible,

either in the form of job modifications or transfer to a vacant position for which

appellant was qualified.7
7

(...continued)

retain employee on suspension with full pay may have been a reasonable

accommodation) (citing Hudson , 87 F.3d at 1169); Hankins v. The Gap, Inc. , 84

F.3d 797, 801 (6th Cir. 1996) (“paid sick leave, paid personal days, a voluntary

time off program, and ample and flexible vacation time” constitute reasonable

accommodation); 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630 app., § 1630.2(o) (reasonable

accommodations “could include permitting the use of accrued paid leave or

providing additional unpaid leave for necessary treatment”); 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630

app., § 1630.15(b) & (c) (“[A]n employer . . . may, in appropriate circumstances,

have to consider the provision of leave to an employee with a disability as a

reasonable accommodation, unless the provision of leave would impose an undue

hardship.”). Because Boeing does not contend, however, that it reasonably

accommodated Aldrich by providing him with leave time, we decline to answer

that question on appeal. 

- 17 -

C

With respect to the final element of the prima facie case—whether plaintiff

was discriminated against on account of his disability—the record contains ample

evidence that Boeing placed plaintiff on involuntary medical leave because of his

flexor tenosynovitis. The prima facie case requires nothing more. See White, 45

F.3d at 361 n.6 (noting that third element of prima facie case is satisfied when

employer admits disability played a role in the disputed decision). Thus, to the

extent plaintiff’s claim is premised on Boeing’s failure to reinstate him prior to

his scheduled termination, the record is replete with evidence that such failure

was a direct result of his alleged disability.

Plaintiff’s claim, however, is slightly more complex than a mere allegation

of failure to reinstate. Plaintiff consistently argued below, as he does here, had
- 18 -

Boeing offered him an accommodation, he would have survived the reduction-inforce that resulted in his termination on June 8, 1993. Although Aldrich concedes

that the reduction-in-force was validly implemented, he notes that he would not

necessarily have been dismissed had Boeing transferred him to a vacant position

because that position might not have been subject to the reduction-in-force. To

the extent plaintiff’s claim is premised on the argument that workplace

modifications or ergonomic training would permit him to perform his original job,

his own concession that the reduction-in-force was based solely on seniority

limits his claim to one for backpay through June 8, 1993, because he cannot show

discrimination caused the termination—he can only show that discrimination was

the basis for being placed on involuntary medical leave. 

If, however, plaintiff prevails on a theory that transfer to a Factory Service

Attendant A position would have been a reasonable accommodation, there is

evidence before us that supports Aldrich’s claim that he may have remained in

that position through early July. See Appellant’s App. at 639, 649-50 (listing

start dates and termination dates of employees in Factory Assistant A positions). 

There is no evidence in the record that the employee placed in the Factory Clerk

C position on February 1, 1993, was ever terminated. Thus, there remains a

further issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s employment would have

continued past June 8, 1993, and, if so, for how long. We, of course, do not
- 19 -

resolve this issue on appeal and note only that plaintiff may be able to establish

that his tenure at Boeing would have been of longer duration depending on the

nature of the accommodation.

We REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further

proceedings.