Opinion ID: 1305514
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Blackford's Status as a Qualified Person.

Text: Casey's contends Blackford failed to establish he was a qualified person as a matter of law because he was rendered unqualified to perform his job due to the loss of his driver's license, not his disability. Similarly, Casey's claims it had no obligation to accommodate Blackford through a transfer to a different job or a leave of absence because his inability to perform his existing job was not based on his disability but a legal impediment resulting from his criminal conduct. These arguments essentially challenge the second element of a discrimination claim, and were accepted by the district court as grounds for reversing the Commission and dismissing the complaint. [4] We have not fully addressed the significance of a distinction between disability and conduct, and its impact on a discrimination claim under section 216.6. We have indicated that our statute permits an employee to establish a discriminatory motive under the third element of a claim as long as the conduct claimed to support the termination is causally related to the disability. Boelman, 522 N.W.2d at 77-78 (employee who suffered from job performance problems related to his multiple sclerosis was discharged because of his disability). At the same time, we have recognized that disability-related conduct is properly considered in determining whether an employee is qualified to perform the essential functions of a job under the second element of a claim. Id. at 80-81. However, we have not considered the impact of a disabled worker's inability to perform the essential functions of a job as a result of misconduct or other consequences of illegal activity on the qualified person element of a claim or the employer's duty to accommodate. We agree with Casey's that our statute exists to prohibit discrimination based on a disability, not matters unrelated to disability. Additionally, some courts have drawn a distinction between a disability and disability-caused misconduct, and concluded that employers do not need to make reasonable accommodations when the inability of a disabled worker to qualify for a job resulted from misconduct. See Den Hartog v. Wasatch Acad., 129 F.3d 1076, 1087-88 (10th Cir.1997); Harris v. Polk County, Iowa, 103 F.3d 696, 697 (8th Cir.1996). However, a close examination of these cases reveals that the dichotomy established between disability and misconduct under the ADA applies only in the context of alcoholism and illegal use of drugs. Den Hartog, 129 F.3d at 1086. It is limited to alcoholism and drug use because the ADA specifically carves out an exception for alcoholism and drug use. See 42 U.S.C. § 12114(c)(4). This section provides employers may hold an employee who engages in the illegal use of drugs or who is an alcoholic to the same qualification standards for employment or job performance and behavior that such entity holds other employees, even if any unsatisfactory performance or behavior is related to the drug use or alcoholism of such employee. Id. Notwithstanding, it is unnecessary for us to decide in this case if our state statute would follow the ADA treatment of alcoholism or would otherwise recognize the distinction between disability and misconduct urged by Casey's. This is because Blackford avoids any clash with Casey's arguments by emphasizing that his claim does not involve Casey's decision to terminate him from his position as a truck driver or his qualifications as a truck driver, but instead involves the failure of Casey's to reassign him to another job once he could no longer perform the truck driving job. Furthermore, Blackford points out that his claim is not based on reassignment under the statutory duty of an employer to accommodate his disability, but under the company transfer policy. Thus, Blackford asserts that his claim boils down to one of disparate treatment based on the failure of Casey's to transfer him to a non-driving position in the same manner as other non-disabled employees have been transferred. Under this approach, Blackford only seeks protection under the statute as an alcoholic, on grounds that the statute requires the employer to consider him for reassignment to another position the same as any other employee who seeks reassignment. These claims are consistent with the findings of the Commission in this case. It found Blackford informed Casey's he wanted to transfer to a non-driving position and that such a position would have most likely been found if Casey's had promptly considered his request. It is also consistent with the Commission's finding that Casey's did not transfer him to a non-driving position because he was an alcoholic. Thus, we consider Blackford's claim in the manner he asserts it was presented to and decided by the Commission. We first consider the claim based on Casey's failure to reassign Blackford separate from the leave of absence claim. We agree with Blackford that the statute separately prohibits an employer from discriminating against a disabled employee who seeks to transfer from an existing position to a vacant position, in addition to prohibiting an employer from discriminating against an employee who is no longer able to perform an existing job and seeks reassignment as a reasonable accommodation. Smith, 180 F.3d at 1164 (an employer cannot discriminate against a disabled individual on the basis of his or her disability whether the person is an existing employee seeking reassignment or an outside job placement). Thus, our statute protects Blackford from discrimination, as he claims, whether he is seeking a reassignment as an accommodation or as an applicant for an open position independent of an accommodation. See Sch. Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 289 n. 19, 107 S.Ct. 1123, 1131 n. 19, 94 L.Ed.2d 307, 321 n. 19 (1987) (although the Rehabilitation Act initially made no mention of a duty to accommodate, and the corresponding regulations to the act limited the definition of qualified to the particular position in question, an employer was still obligated to find an alternative job for a disabled worker if the employer normally did so under an existing transfer policy). Yet, in both instances, a claimant must establish all three elements to recover, including the second element that he or she is qualified to perform the job held or desired. Although we interpret our statute to impose a duty on an employer to accommodate a worker who is unable to perform his or her job because of a disability, we still require an employee who seeks reassignment as an accommodation to show, as a predicate to recovery, that reassignment to a vacant position could have been accomplished. Smith, 180 F.3d at 1174. It is not enough for the employee to make a general claim of the existence of the vacant position. The employee must specifically identify the position or positions that were available. Id. at 1179; Schlitzer, 641 N.W.2d at 531. It is only in the context of a particular job that the court can evaluate a claimant's qualifications to perform its essential functions. Schlitzer, 641 N.W.2d at 531. We are unable to identify any reason to drop this requirement of an employee to identify a specific open position when reassignment is sought independent of the employer's duty of accommodation. Just as in accommodation claims, when the court is presented with a disparate treatment case based on the failure to reassign, it must evaluate a claimant's qualifications in the context of the essential functions of a particular job. Additionally, it is basic to our statute that a claim must be premised on a particular job held, or one that is sought or desired. Thus, even if an employee relies on a company transfer policy, instead of the statutory obligation to reassign, the employee must still identify a specific available position. Under the record, it is clear, as Casey's argues, that the Commission erred in finding Blackford was a qualified person. At best, the evidence produced by Blackford showed that a three-way job switch was possible. Additionally, the evidence showed it was likely that some job could have been found for Blackford if Casey's would have used its full resources to locate an open position. Yet, this evidence falls below the necessary standard of proof. [5] An employer is not required to create a vacancy. Id. at 530. Nor are employers required to displace existing employees from their positions. Burns, 222 F.3d at 257. A job switch arrangement requires an employer both to create an opening and to displace an existing employee. Thus, evidence of a possible job switch does not satisfy the requirement to identify a specific available job. Furthermore, an employee cannot satisfy the requirement to specifically identify a vacant position by evidence that some job could have been found at the time the request for reassignment was made if the company had done more to find a job. A general interest in some job is insufficient to establish the qualified person element of a discrimination claim. See Sauzek v. Exxon Coal USA, Inc., 202 F.3d 913, 919 (7th Cir.2000). The record did reveal evidence presented at one of the administrative hearings indicating Casey's hired some new employees for jobs Blackford likely would have been qualified to perform, such as ground and building maintenance positions, during the relevant time frame after Blackford began to inquire into a possible transfer. Nevertheless, this type of evidence does not aid Blackford's claim under the circumstances because there was no additional evidence Blackford sought these jobs or that the company transfer policy required Casey's to notify Blackford of these jobs or help him secure a job. Blackford's claim did not implicate Casey's duty to accommodate his disability through a transfer. Moreover, the transfer policy was extremely vague, and at best, only encouraged department heads to post open jobs to allow existing employees to apply for the jobs before opening the positions to new employees. There was no evidence Blackford followed this policy or that he requested a transfer to a specific open position. In the context of Blackford's specific claim of discrimination, he was required to identify a specific job he actually sought or desired to support his claim for discrimination. Likewise, the discrimination claim by Blackford based on the leave of absence must also fail. The leave of absence claim is tied to the transfer claim, and was argued by Blackford only on the basis that a leave of absence could have been used to assist Blackford in accomplishing a transfer to a non-driving job in the event such a job was not immediately available at the time Blackford lost his license and was unable to work as a driver. Blackford never sought a leave of absence, but specifically argues on appeal that it was a way of effectuating the transfer. Although this argument might expand the window of time for an employee to show a vacant position was available, an employee must still establish an open position would have been available during this window of time. Blackford has not presented any evidence of a specific vacant position for which he qualified during any period of time. Accordingly, the claim must fail. Like the ADA, our unfair employment practices statute exists to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities, as well as discrimination based on other protected characteristics. See Webb v. Garelick Mfg. Co., 94 F.3d 484, 487 (8th Cir.1996) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)). We interpret the statute consistent with this purpose so that persons with disabilities will not suffer discrimination at the hands of employers in this state. See Miller v. Westfield Ins. Co., 606 N.W.2d 301, 303 (Iowa 2000) (a statute is construed to best effectuate its purpose and redress wrongs sought to be remedied). Nevertheless, standards have been developed as a predicate to recovery of claims, one of which requires a claimant seeking reassignment to show he or she was qualified to perform a specific vacant position sought. Blackford failed to satisfy this burden. In reaching this conclusion under this record, we recognize neither party had the benefit of Schlitzer, nor the other law that has been developed in this rapidly growing area since the claim was first brought. Schlitzer was our first opportunity to develop the requirement to identify an open position, and we are still shaping the meaning of an employer's duty to accommodate. Yet, judicial decisions generally operate retroactively and prospectively, and we apply the law to a case that exists at the time the case comes before us. See N. River Ins. Co. v. Iowa Div. of Ins., 501 N.W.2d 542, 546 (Iowa 1993); In re Estate of Weidman, 476 N.W.2d 357, 361 (Iowa 1991). There is no reason to deviate from this rule.