Opinion ID: 158744
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reassignment as Reasonable Accommodation

Text: 37 Denver also contends the district court erred in instructing the jury that the ADA mandates reassignment as a reasonable accommodation in certain circumstances. In essence, Denver's position is that reassignment is always optional for an employer and therefore a failure to reassign cannot serve as a basis for liability. We addressed this issue in Smith as well. 38 We held in Smith that reassignment of an employee to a vacant position in a company is one of the range of reasonable accommodations which must be considered and, if appropriate, offered if the employee is unable to perform his or her existing job. Id. at 167 (emphasis added). We recognized that reassignment may not always be an appropriate form of reasonable accommodation. For example, if possible the employer should reasonably accommodate the employee within his or her existing job instead of reassigning him or her. See id. at 1170-71. If such accommodation is impossible, the employer need only reassign the employee to an existing vacant position for which the employee is qualified. See id. at 1170. Moreover, an employer need not reassign an employee to a position which would be a promotion or would constitute an undue burden on the employer. See id. 39 Notwithstanding these limitations, the reassignment obligation . . . mean[s] something more than merely allowing a disabled person to compete equally with the rest of the world for a vacant position. Id. at 1165. Although the right to reassignment is not absolute, it may very well be determined that reassignment is a reasonable accommodation under all of the circumstances. If it is so determined, then the disabled employee has a right in fact to the reassignment, and not just to the consideration process leading up to the potential reassignment. Id. at 1166; see also id. at 1167. Hence, under Smith, a failure to reassign a disabled employee most certainly can constitute discrimination, and therefore a basis for liability, under the ADA. 40 Here, plaintiffs' positions as police officers could not be modified to accommodate their disabilities and consideration of reassignment was therefore appropriate. The district court correctly instructed the jury that reassignment may be required, subject to various limitations.