Opinion ID: 162420
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Dilley's requested accommodation was reasonable.

Text: 9 SuperValu argues that Dilley's requested accommodation — returning to a truck driver position — was unreasonable as a matter of law because it would have required SuperValu to violate the terms of its collective bargaining agreement with the union representing its warehouse employees. Because the driving positions are subject to a seniority system, SuperValu contends that Dilley could have been bumped from any of the driving positions for which he might have been qualified, and that keeping him in the position would have violated the collective bargaining agreement. Dilley insists that his seniority made such displacement unlikely. 10 The ADA requires an employer to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). SuperValu is correct that this provision does not require an employer to provide an accommodation that would violate a bona fide seniority system under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. But it is the direct violation of a seniority system that has been held unreasonable under the governing case law. See, e.g., U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 122 S.Ct. 1516, 1519, 152 L.Ed.2d 589 (2002) ([T]o show that a requested accommodation conflicts with the rules of a seniority system is ordinarily to show that the accommodation is not `reasonable.'); Aldrich v. Boeing Co., 146 F.3d 1265, 1272 n. 5 (10th Cir. 1998) ([H]ad Boeing transferred Aldrich to any of the last three disputed jobs ... it would have violated the seniority provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.); Milton v. Scrivner, Inc., 53 F.3d 1118, 1125 (10th Cir.1995) ([P]laintiffs' collective bargaining agreement prohibits their transfer to any other job because plaintiffs lack the requisite seniority.). 11 Here, by contrast, there was only a potential violation of the seniority system. SuperValu does not contend that Dilley lacked the seniority required to be placed in a non-lifting driver position. Rather, SuperValu contends that the seniority system would be violated if a more senior employee later requested to be placed in Dilley's new position, and SuperValu nevertheless decided to leave Dilley in that position. SuperValu's own witness testified that Dilley ranked fifth out of forty-two drivers in seniority. Thus, the jury could have concluded that the prospect of Dilley's displacement by a more senior driver was remote. Even if a more senior driver did request Dilley's new position, there is no reason why SuperValu would have to violate the seniority system by refusing to remove Dilley from the bumped job until other routes or positions would become available. 12 Once the plaintiff produces evidence sufficient to make a facial showing that accommodation is possible, the burden of production shifts to the employer to present evidence of its inability to accommodate. White v. York Int'l Corp., 45 F.3d 357, 361 (10th Cir.1995) (citation omitted). Dilley produced evidence from which the jury could have concluded that he could have been accommodated through assignment to certain positions that were, as a matter of fact, within his lifting restriction. The only justification offered by SuperValu for its inability to grant this requested accommodation is its concern regarding potential violations of the seniority system. This concern is speculative, and did not preclude the jury from finding Dilley's requested accommodation to be reasonable. The district court properly instructed the jury that reasonable accommodation may include ... allowing plaintiff to bid into a position for which he is qualified and has the requisite seniority. Apparently, the jury concluded that Dilley was qualified and had the requisite seniority for certain truck driving positions within his sixty-pound lifting restriction. That conclusion was supported by the evidence introduced at trial, and thus the district court did not commit plain error by allowing the ADA claim to go to the jury. 13