Opinion ID: 1305514
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Qualified Person.

Text: The second element of a discrimination claim under the statute requires claimants to establish they are qualified persons for the job by showing they can `perform the essential functions of [the position] with or without accommodation.' Schlitzer, 641 N.W.2d at 530 (citation omitted); see Miller v. Sioux Gateway Fire Dep't, 497 N.W.2d 838, 841 (Iowa 1993) (a qualified person is one who can perform the essential functions of a job in spite of a disability). In Schlitzer, we recognized this showing requires the court to consider whether the claimant has ``the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.'' Schlitzer, 641 N.W.2d at 531 (citation omitted). If the claimant proves he or she can perform the essential functions of the job, the qualified person element is met. Boelman, 522 N.W.2d at 80. If not, then an additional inquiry must be made to determine if a reasonable accommodation by the employer would enable [the claimant] to perform the essential functions. Id.; see Schlitzer, 641 N.W.2d at 530 (applying the shifting burden analysis). An employer, under Iowa law, must make `a reasonable effort' to accommodate an employee's disability. Courtney v. Am. Nat'l Can Co., 537 N.W.2d 681, 687 (Iowa 1995) (citation omitted). We further emphasized in Schlitzer that the duty to reasonably accommodate a claimant applies not only to an existing job, but also includes a job the claimant desires. Schlitzer, 641 N.W.2d at 530-31; see 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9) (2000) (reasonable accommodation includes reassignment to a vacant position); Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 180 F.3d 1154, 1161-63 (10th Cir.1999) (qualified individual under the ADA includes disabled employees who can perform a desired reassignment job, with or without an accommodation, though unable to perform their existing job); Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284, 1300-01 (D.C.Cir.1998). Thus, like the federal ADA counterpart, our statute should not only protect a disabled person who can perform the essential functions of a position the person holds, with or without an accommodation, but also protect a disabled person who can perform the essential functions of a desired job, with or without an accommodation. Schlitzer, 641 N.W.2d at 530-31. This means an employer has some obligation, based on the employee's initiation of the process, to reassign a disabled employee who has become disabled and can no longer perform the essential functions of his or her job as a reasonable accommodation. Id. We have not fully illuminated the parameters of this obligation to accommodate through reassignment, but it is clear it involves an interactive process that engages the employee and employer to work in concert to achieve a reasonable accommodation once the employee has expressed a desire for reassignment. See Smith, 180 F.3d at 1170-78. At the same time, an accommodation by reassignment does not require an employer to respond by creating a vacant position. Schlitzer, 641 N.W.2d at 530. Additionally, an employee who seeks reassignment as an accommodation to a disability must identify a specific available job the employee is qualified to perform to ultimately recover under the statute. Id. at 530-32. Even if an employer fails to fully assist an employee in a request for reassignment, the employee must still show a specific position was available that he or she could have sought. See Burns v. CocaCola Enters., Inc., 222 F.3d 247, 258 (6th Cir.2000); Smith, 180 F.3d at 1174. Without this showing, an employee cannot establish he or she is a qualified person. Schlitzer, 641 N.W.2d at 530-32.