Opinion ID: 2208387
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Disability Discrimination Claim.

Text: We next consider plaintiff's claim that the district court erred in denying recovery on his disability discrimination claim. Because it appears without dispute that driving had been a requirement of the casual guard position throughout plaintiff's employment in that capacity, he does not seriously dispute that his inability to drive for medical reasons was a physical impairment affecting his ability to perform on the job. Rather, he contends that the city was required and failed to make a reasonable accommodation for his disability as required by 240 Iowa Administrative Code section 6.2(6) (now contained in 161 Iowa Admin.Code § 8.27(6)). That administrative rule states: Reasonable accommodation. An employer shall make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified handicapped applicant or employee unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its program. a. Reasonable accommodation may include: (1) Making facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons, and (2) Job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, the provision of readers or interpreters, and other similar actions. b. In determining pursuant to the first paragraph of this subrule whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of an employer's program, factors to be considered include: (1) The overall size of the employer's program with respect to number of employees, number and type of facilities, and size of budget; (2) The type of the employer's operation, including the composition and structure of the employer's workforce [sic]; and (3) The nature and cost of the accommodation needed. c. An employer may not deny any employment opportunity to a qualified handicapped employee or applicant if the basis for the denial is the need to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental limitations of the employee or applicant. Id. The district court, although recognizing the existence of these rules, found that the city had not violated them. Its finding of fact on this issue was as follows: [T]he Court concludes that the employer did, under the circumstances, reasonably accommodate the employee's disability. The Court does not believe the City could have accommodated the employee in the same position because he could not perform that same position since it required driving. The City was not in a position to transfer the Petitioner to another job because the jobs available with the City either had to be secured through civil service procedure or by bidding due to collective bargaining agreements. The City did extend an offer on two occasions for the Petitioner to apply for jobs with the City through the normal course of application as required of any other employees and that opportunity was declined by the Petitioner. The employer has met its duty to produce evidence of reasonable accommodation. In evaluating the legal effect of this finding under the applicable law, we take note of our previous statements that under the Iowa Civil Rights Act reasonable accommodation must be made by an employer only if it does not substantially impinge on the rights of other employees or incur more than a de minimus cost to the employer. Brown v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, 407 N.W.2d 598, 599 (Iowa 1987); Frank v. American Freight Sys., 398 N.W.2d 797, 803 (Iowa 1987). As a result of the district court's finding of fact, the plaintiff may not prevail in this law action unless his evidence establishes the city's failure to make a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law. Ellwood v. Mid States Commodities, 404 N.W.2d 174, 179 (Iowa 1987); Roland A. Wilson & Assocs. v. Forty-O-Four Grand Corp., 246 N.W.2d 922, 925 (Iowa 1976). Based on our review of the evidence, we cannot conclude that such failure on the part of the city was established as a matter of law. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED.