Document: 535 U.S. 391 US AIRWAYS, INC.v.BARNETT. No. 00-1250. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued December 4, 2001. Decided April 29, 2002. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT After respondent Barnett injured his back while a cargo handler for petitioner Airways, Inc., he transferred to less physically demanding mailroom position. His new position later became open senioritybased employee bidding under Airways' seniority system, and employees senior him planned bid on job. Airways refused request accommodate disability by allowing remain in mailroom, lost He then filed suit Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA or Act), which prohibits an employer from discriminating against "an individual disability" who "reasonable accommodation" can perform job's essential functions, 42 U. S. C. §§ 12112(a) (b), unless "can demonstrate that accommodation would impose undue hardship operation [its] business," § 12112(b)(5)(A). Finding altering system result "undue hardship" both its nondisabled employees, District granted company summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding was merely factor analysis case-by-case, fact intensive is required determine whether any particular assignment constitute hardship. Held: An employer's showing requested conflicts rules ordinarily sufficient show, as matter law, "accommodation" not "reasonable." However, remains free present evidence special circumstances makes rule exception reasonable case. Pp. 396-406. (a) Many lower courts have reconciled phrases practical way, plaintiff/employee (to defeat defendant/employer's judgment motion) need only show seems face, i. e., run cases. defendant/employer must (typically case-specific) demonstrating circumstances. Neither — no violating system's nor Barnett's authorizes court consider accommodation's ability meet individual's disability-related needs proper interpretation Act. 396-402. (b) Here, question proposed normally be rendered unreasonable because violate rules. Ordinarily answer "yes." statute does require proof case-by-case basis should prevail it cases trump such Analogous case law has recognized importance employee-management relations, finding, e. g., collectively bargained trumps linguistically similar Rehabilitation Act, see, Eckles v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 94 F. 3d 1041, 1047-1048. And relevant advantages, related difficulties resulting violations rules, are limited systems, but also apply many systems (like one at issue) unilaterally imposed management. A typical provides important benefits creating, fulfilling, expectations fair, uniform treatment job security opportunity steady predictable advancement based objective standards might undermined if were more than existence. Nothing suggests Congress intended undermine way. 402-405. (c) plaintiff (here employee) warrant finding that, despite presence, facts. Special alter created system. example, employer, having retained right change unilaterally, exercises fairly frequently, reducing will followed point where likely make difference. already contains exceptions circumstances, further unlikely matter. burden explain why, case, even though ordinary cannot. 405-406. (d) took different view this matter, neither party had seek accordance principles set forth here. P. 406. 228 1105, vacated remanded. BREYER, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. post, p. 406, O'Connor, 408, concurring opinions. Scalia, dissenting opinion, Thomas, joined, 411. Souter, Ginsburg, 420. Walter E. Dellinger argued cause petitioner. With briefs Lawrence M. Nagin Robert A. Siegel. Claudia Center respondent. her brief William McNeill III, Eric Schnapper, Todd Schneider, Guy Wallace, W. Rychlik.* Justice Breyer Court. 1 104 Stat. 328, 12101 et seq. (1994 ed. Supp. V), "individual who, accommodation," functions ed.). This arising context judgment, asks us how resolves potential conflict between: (1) interests disabled worker seeks (2) other workers superior rights In demand system? 2 our view, As we interpret statute, Hence entitle employer/defendant there more. "reasonable" Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e). 3 * 1990, Barnett, here, working cargo-handling Inc. invoked Under position, like others, periodically bidding. 1992, learned least two asked disability-imposed limitations making allow mailroom. permitting continue work five months considered eventually decided exception. 4 brought ADA claiming, among things, capable performing job, amounted disability, refusing assign unlawfully discriminated him. moved It supported motion appropriate affidavits, 56, contending "well-established" obtain 5 found undisputed facts about warranted favor. says fails accommodations known physical mental [employee] discriminates "unless" business." 12112(b)(5)(A) (emphasis added). said: 6 "[T]he uncontroverted shows USAir been place `decades' governs over 14,000 Agents. Moreover, policies issue common airline industry. Given context, clear justified relying upon policy. such, significant alteration policy non-disabled employees." App. Pet. Cert. 96a. 7 en banc panel States Appeals reversed. said presence "a analysis." 1120 (2000). held "[a] reassignment employer." Ibid. 8 petitioned certiorari, asking decide 9 "the [ADA] requires reassign `reasonable accommodation' another entitled hold bona fide established system." Brief Petitioner 10 Circuits reached conclusions legal significance Compare 3d, 1120, EEOC Sara Lee 237 349, 354 (CA4 2001). We agreed question. II 11 answering presented, following statutory provisions. First, may "discriminate qualified disability." 12112(a). Second, "qualified" includes without accommodation, of" "employment position." 12111(8) Third, "discrimination" "not otherwise ... employee, [the employer] Fourth, term " include vacant 12111(9)(B). 12 parties language applied radically ways. always one. polar opposite violation never sought concedes help "undue" "hardship," shall initially parties' main arguments support these conflicting positions. 13 claim virtually rests primarily treats workplace "preferences." Insofar violates disability-neutral rule, grants could receive. Yet says, "equal" those disabilities. See, 12101(a)(9). not, contends, grant preferential treatment. Cf. H. R. Rep. 101-485, pt. 2, 66 (1990); 101-116, pp. 26-27 (1989) (employer "obligation prefer applicants disabilities applicants" added)). provide preference. 14 While logical, argument recognize what specifies, namely, preferences sometimes prove necessary achieve Act's basic equal goal. form accommodations" needed same opportunities automatically enjoy. By definition treat differently, preferentially. difference cannot itself beyond reach. 15 Were so, provision accomplish objective. Neutral office prevent whose ground floor. "break-from-work" additional breaks work, perhaps permit medical visits. furniture budget kind chair desk. employers neutral governing kinds actions most reasonably disability. See 12111(9)(b) (setting examples "job restructuring," "part-time modified schedules," "acquisition modification equipment devices," "and accommodations"). Congress, providing examples, nothing suggesting create automatic exemption. Nor made suggestion. Garcia-Ayala Lederle Parenterals, 212 638, 648 (CA1 2000) (requiring leave allowed company's own policy); Hendricks-Robinson Excel 154 685, 699 (CA7 1998) "physical fitness" requirement). 16 sum, nature requirement, silence exempting effect together convince simple "preference" sense others obey cannot, itself, result, reject taken Scalia contrary. 17 points provisions stating "`reasonable 12111(9)(B) claims means "vacant" however, word specialized meaning. English, give them held, time suit, some worker; "open" 5. "reserves all" portions will. Lodging Respondent (US Air Personnel Policy Guide Agents). Consequently, agree position's vacancy; do deny reason. B 18 argues words mean "effective authorizing needs, On violation, effectiveness, "reasonableness." might, most, But, adds, demonstrate, 19 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations .... [m]odifications adjustments enable [a] 29 CFR 1630(o)(ii) (2001) 66; 35 (discussing terms "effectiveness," discussing costs hardship"). adds virtual mirror images creating redundancy statute. dilemma. 20 dilemma arises, argues, imposes proving plaintiff, here employee. allocation sensible frequently easily business absence. But suppose counter "seniority violation" order Would force absence, absence hardship, statute's insistence "demonstrate" hardship's presence? 21 These persuade correct. For thing, English "effective." "accommodation," "reasonable," conveys effectiveness. ineffective "modification" "adjustment" limitations. meaning simple, redundant image hardship." refers effective impact, operations, fellow say, lead dismissals, relocations, ployee looking perspective relatively indifferent. 22 primary purpose reading. diminish eliminate stereotypical thought processes, thoughtless actions, hostile reactions far too often bar participating fully Nation's life, including workplace. generally 12101(a) (b). objectives unprejudiced responsive reaction part alike. They affirmative conduct promote entry people into force. supra, 397-398. action realm reasonable. 23 indicated elsewhere, say "enable" person task. phrasing simply emphasizes provision's thing. discussed below, appeals so read them. see 1122-1123 (Gould, concurring). 24 Finally, "burden proof" points. courts, rejecting absolute views, 25 judgment) Reed LePage Bakeries, 244 254, 259 2001) (plaintiff meets reasonableness "at face things," feasible employer); Borkowski Valley Central School Dist., 63 131, 138 (CA2 1995) satisfies production" "plausible accommodation"); Barth Gelb, 1180, 1187 (CADC 1993) (interpreting parallel "method cases" original)). 26 Once showing, Reed, 258 (" `undue inquiry focuses hardships [employer's] operations'") (quoting Barth, 1187); Borkowski, (after initial falls "would suffer hardship"); ("undue agency's operations"). 27 Not every used language, their results functionally similar. consistently principles, avoids dilemma, reconciling ("reasonable III 28 relationship between plaintiff's assume accommodation." within circumstance, 12111(9) "reassignment position"). Does circumstance one? prevail. That To contrary, 30 Several factors conclusion supports conclusion, relations. Title VII religious discrimination adapt employee's worship schedule doing employees. Trans World Airlines, Hardison, 432 63, 79-80 (1977). unanimously 1047-1048 1996) (collecting cases); Shea Tisch, 870 2d 786, 790 1989); Carter 822 465, 469 1987); Jasany Postal Service, 755 1244, 1251-1252 (CA6 1985). several Circuits, differing reasoning, ADA. Smith Midland Brake, 180 1154, 1175 (CA10 1999); Feliciano Rhode Island, 160 780, 787 1998); Eckles, All discuss system) systems. 31 standards." 32 (citing Fallon & Weiler, Firefighters Stotts: Conflicting Models Racial Justice, 1984 Ct. Rev. 1, 57-58). B. Lindemann Grossman, Discrimination Law 72 (3d ("One aspects competitive use determining laid off during reduction force"). element due process," limiting "unfairness personnel decisions." Gersuny, Origins Seniority Provisions Collective Bargaining, 33 Lab. L. J. 518, 519 (1982). they consequently encourage invest employing company, accepting "less value firm early careers" return greater years. Baron D. Kreps, Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks General Managers 288 (1999). Most purposes, existence well employees' consistent, depend. substitute complex case-specific decision management uniform, impersonal Such decisionmaking, inevitable discretionary elements, involve greatest layoffs; take outside, inside, confines case; often. ADA, 12101(a)(1) (estimating 43 million disabilities). find conclude sufficient. nonetheless (which cases), described above. 137 ("[A]n burdens members industry nevertheless defendant light circumstances"). Woodman Runyon, 132 1330, 1343-1344 1997). departure, exhaust showings make. bear IV 34 "established assignment. Hence, warrants "more," surrounding Because vacate Appeals' remand proceedings consistent opinion. 36 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal Transport Association America, al. John Gallagher Margaret Spurlin; Advisory Council Ann Elizabeth Reesman. amici affirmance American Federation Labor Industrial Organizations Jonathan Hiatt, Deborah Greenfield, James Coppess, Michael Gottesman, Laurence Gold; National Lawyers Brian East Paula Brantner. Peter Petesch, Thomas Walsh, Jr., Timothy Bland, David Harvey, Society Resource Management amicus curiae. 37 Stevens, concurring. 38 I join Court's my colleagues' separate writings prompt comments. 39 possible 1990. reason, extent concluded given determined minor bearing inquiry, misread 40 Although did standard endorses today, correctly rejected per se pressed properly reversed triable precluding respect violated failing engage interactive process concerning respondent's three accommodations. 1117 (CA9 (en banc). latter untouched today. 41 Among questions able record presented are: response routine change,1 direct consequence layoff thousand employees;2 viewed position,3 maintenance status quo;4 (3) exactly impact employees.5 understand remand, overcome presumption petitioner's discharge. 7-8 (letter, dated Mar. 8, 1994, counsel Commission)) (declaration motion)) Seepost, 409-410 (O'Connor, 423 (Souter, dissenting). See,e. ibid. ("There unmanageable ripple effects request"). problematic test V). plays role workplace, reasons purposes depends legally enforceable. "Were me adhere [this belief] vote, [adopt majority rule]," so. Screws States, 325 91, 134 (1945) (Rutledge, result). "The divided opinion," ibid., each Member voted beliefs, resolution "[s]talemate prevail," particularly interpreting Accordingly, adopt believe outcome adopted, concerns. Bragdon Abbott, 524 624, 655-656 (1998) (STEVENS, joined concurring); Olmstead C., 527 581, 607-608 (1999) (Stevens, judgment). 44 specifically lists position" example deciding involving think prevents being vacant. filled occupied incumbent [or] possessor." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2527 (1976). currently works entitlement. when ceases former until replacement hired. Even start immediately, once enters contractual agreement longer "possessor." contrast, enforceable become entitles it. Instead, immediately becomes "possessor" unenforceable policy, expecting type therefore 45 understanding vacant, someone seeking entitlement sought, If accommodation. Indeed, legislative history confirms intend bumping (1990) ("The Committee wishes `bumping' out vacancy required"); (same). 46 Petitioner's Agents, states contract (express implied) obligations," all stated procedures [the] time, advanc[e] notice." original). conceded oral rights. Tr. Oral Arg. 16. bidding, 47 Part explains `accommodation' cases." Ante, 401. words, method ante, 402 1993)). explains, "[o]nce operations. 402. interpretations 12112(b)(5)(A), hardship," preventing concepts overlapping general specific inquiry. When turns applying blend inquiries 48 am troubled approach evaluating adopted. Unenforceable "retai[n] system," 405, "contai[n] exceptions," contain disclaimers "reduc[e] followed." Thus, test, the[ir] case." correct outcome, statutes, 49 SCALIA, whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting. 50 mandate Act) "another i; 532 970 (2001). Indulging penchant eschewing avoid litigation, Kansas Crane, 534 407, (2002) (Scalia, dissenting); TRW Andrews, 19, 35-36 judgment), answers "maybe." creates "unreasonable" 403, allows rebutted "will difference," 405. 51 principal defect today's goes uncertainty produces regarding infinite variety ever overridden mistaken employment practices pose distinctive obstacle subject suspension (in court's view) enabling keep cry requires: (within reason) observing. 52 begins describing declaring 396. more: individual." ed.) 53 Read together, modify remove "because [his] eliminates barriers overcoming include, stations accept wheelchair, assembly-line practice long periods standing. heavily exemption "make up for" pay grade level increment earmarked massage therapy little discomfort co-workers. "accommodating" "making accommodatio[n] limitations" constitutes 54 So cases, harsher task be, him, unemployment. obstacle, needy renders salary obstacle. departs understanding, ADA's standardless grab bag leaving (higher salary, vacations, positions entitled) deemed 55 Some accepted contention demands obstacles Their meaningless, contend, "hiring, advancement, discharge terms, conditions, privileges employment." Surely, goes, preference appears. 1164-1165 1999) banc); Aka Washington Hospital Center, 156 1284, 1304-1305 Accord, Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation Undue Hardship BNA Compliance Manual, 246, N:2479 (Mar. 1999). 56 quite mistaken. appointment (including candidate better qualified, "best qualified" rule) considerable value. hired fill miserably, typically fired. Few search organization charts vacancies low-performing suited. firing poor performance first affect performance. removes (the inability assigned job) solely Bruff North Mississippi Health Services, 495, 502 (CA5 N:2478 transfer still disability"). 57 phrase appears subsection accommodation[s]": 58 "(A) existing facilities readily accessible usable individuals disabilities; 59 "(B) restructuring, part-time schedules, acquisition devices, adjustment modifications examinations, training materials policies, readers interpreters, disabilities." 60 Subsection (A) clearly addresses features (B) broader scope equally targeted obstacles. Thus encompasses "modified schedules" protracted periods), "modification "provision interpreters." There reason why uniquely focus. envisions elimination current activity tolerate) alternate freely available. else it, envision service qualifications. 1630, 1630.2(o), 357 (explaining "any environment way things customarily done enables enjoy opportunities" added)); 1314-1315 (Silberman, dissenting) listed 12111(9), none "even alludes possibility nondisabled"). 61 Unsurprisingly, Courts addressing assumed "legitimate, nondiscriminatory policy" assigning 353-355 (seniority system); Humiston-Keeling, 227 1024, 1028-1029 (policy applicant); Burns Coca-Cola Enterprises, 222 247, 257-258 reassigning advertised position); Cravens Blue Cross Shield City, 214 1011, 1020 (CA8 (assuming legitimate, policies); Duckett Dunlop Tire 120 1222, 1225 (CA11 1997) salaried production covered collective-bargaining unit); Daugherty El Paso, 695, 700 giving full-time priority positions). 62 Commission, regulations, acknowledges clears away person's According agency, "(i) application applicant desires; 64 "(ii) environment... position; 65 "(iii) entity's enjoyed similarly situated 1630.2(o) 1630.9, 364 requirement best understood removed alleviated"). 67 Sadly, mistakenly inexplicably concludes, 398, attributed Airways. "automatic exemption" 397-398, rejects made. 68 Although, said, cast ill consequences produced decision, few order. Since, eligible vehicles saving judicial through unreasonable. unwilling, categorically, (and "creates" word) rebuttable leaves "special circumstances" exception, showed "one departure" difference." 69 idea means. departure difference"? multiple exceptions, expect exceptions. One unannounced invariably values ("fair, treatment," security," "predictable advancement," etc.) cites believing merit 404. 70 tempted impart rationality scheme speculating burden-shifting sham full meaningful expectations. applies, "bona established," "to ...." How deviations "undermine expectations"? 71 conclude, then, unmask systems; gives vague unspecified power (whenever circumstances") undercut "in cases," belied disposition remands difference" expectations, Court: [petitioner's] 73 74 disregarded state resolved constant litigation; adopts incorrectly subjects accommodation; respectfully dissent. 75 Ginsburg 76 "[R]eassignment ed.), "reasonabl[y] accommodat[e]" (ADA), today holds employer. concur appreciation hand majority's 77 insulates marked contrast Civil Rights 1964 Age 1967, explicit protection seniority. 2000e-2(h) ("Notwithstanding subchapter, unlawful [provide employees] pursuant ..."); 623(f) ("It prohibited [under previous sections] observe [except involuntary retirement] ..."). modeled VII,1 failure replicate VII's ambiguous, albeit hint inevitably carry day. 78 event, ambiguity. Reports House Representatives Senate protections contained amount factor" comes odds nevertheless. (existence determinative" reasonable); (a collectivebargaining jobs "may determining" reasonable). course, congressional committees wrong thinking views sound reduce factor," effect. fact, doubt interpretive clue settled agreements 301(a), Relations 1947, 185(a) (permitting federal enforce agreements); Textile Workers Lincoln Mills Ala., 353 448 (1957) (holding 301(a) expresses favor enforceability labor contracts); Charles Dowd Box Co. Courtney, 368 502, 509 (1962) ("Section reflects recognition vital assuring [collective-bargaining] agreements"). sort analysis, surely weight meant before us, and, unlike agreements, singled positive 79 reliance (1977), broken agreement. "supported" S., 79-82. Houses dealing aware expressed choice treating authority lack maintaining enunciated TWA Hardison applicable legislation"); (same).2 80 enjoys consideration peculiar very gauge carried describes "plausible" "feasible," 402, met 81 years learning Airways's declare "vacant." claimants reassignment, continuation quo. refrain "vacant"; ask bump account. request, overstepped inordinate number levels remaining was. 82 hard match requests, since apparently pains ensure raised great statement, "[t]he Agent contract" "USAir reserves advanced skip state-by-state handbooks source lawyers' fees) safe jurisdictions disclaimer fatal contrary decision.3 83 insisting noncontractual modifiable will, resulted anything minimal disruption that. shown ought shift spite surface appearances, worked affirm Circuit. evident copied incorporated reference 25, (1989); 54, 76-77 (1990). Report singles outHardison's equation "de minimus [sic] cost" inapplicable addressed 81, 84. Nonetheless, Congress's disavowal "crucial ensuring disabilities," 68, singularly inappropriate bolster argue riddled engender treatmentAnte,

Category: 1