Opinion ID: 162420
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether SuperValu's offered accommodation was reasonable.

Text: 14 SuperValu argues that this case should have been dismissed because SuperValu attempted to reasonably accommodate Dilley by placing him in a nonunion dispatch or merchandising position. What SuperValu fails to mention, however, is that the dispatch position entailed a substantial cut in pay, and the merchandising job was a position that might open up in the future. There is no evidence regarding the pay, duties, or any other aspects of the merchandising position. Neither position actually was offered to Dilley. 15 In reasonably accommodating an employee under the ADA, [t]he employer should first consider lateral moves to positions that are regarded as equivalent, and may only consider lesser jobs that constitute a demotion if there are no such equivalent positions available. Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 180 F.3d 1154, 1177 (10th Cir.1999) (en banc); see also 29 C.F.R. app. § 1630.2( o ) (An employer may reassign an individual to a lower grade and paid position if there are no accommodations that would enable the employee to remain in the current position and there are no vacant equivalent positions for which the individual is qualified with or without reasonable accommodation.). As discussed above, the jury could have concluded that SuperValu improperly disqualified Dilley from certain truck-driving positions within his lifting restriction. Those positions were equivalent to his former position, and should have been considered before a demotion. Under these circumstances, SuperValu cannot show that its offered accommodation was reasonable as a matter of law. 16