Just days ago, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., issued a favorable decision consistent with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. In this case, the Court ruled that that the ADA “does indeed mandate that an employer appoint employees with disabilities to vacant positions for which they are qualified, provided that such accommodations would be ordinarily reasonable and would not present an undue hardship to that employer.” United Airlines had a policy that provided that United Airlines accommodation policy which stated that “transfer . . . [to] an equivalent or lower-level vacant position” may be a reasonable accommodation, the guidelines specify that the transfer process is competitive. Accordingly, employees needing accommodation will not be automatically placed into vacant positions but instead will be given preferential treatment.” The EEOC successfully argued that the ADA required employers to reassign disabled employees needing accommodation into positions they were qualified for so long as it was reasonable and did not pose an undue hardship to the employer. The EEOC, in a press release, heralded its win by proclaiming:
The Court's decision will have far-reaching benefits for individuals with disabilities who strive for economic independence and want to work," said EEOC General Counsel David Lopez. "We are pleased that the case may now go forward."
EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo said, "We anticipate that numerous employees at United locations nationwide may have a claim in this systemic case. This case will allow them to seek reassignment and continue their careers with United."
EEOC Appellate Attorney Barbara Sloan added, "In defining 'reasonable accommodation' to include 'reassignment to a vacant position,' Congress clearly intended to ensure that employees with disabilities remain productive workers even when they can no longer do their current jobs due to disability -- as long as reassignment is possible and poses no undue hardship.Proving an “undue hardship” is not an easy burden for an employer to satisfy. Therefore, we expect that employers will fight against this ruling in other areas of the country. Perhaps, the issue will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court … stay tuned.
