A federal court recently ruled against a disabled United Airlines employee who demanded transfer to another job as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
It is well known that the ADA requires employers to consider granting disabled workers reasonable accommodation, including the possibility of “reassignment to a vacant position.” This simple phrase has divided the federal courts on the precise scope of the employer’s obligation.
Some courts have ruled that the obligation to reasonably accommodate requires that a disabled employee be directly placed into an existing vacancy for which they are minimally qualified even if there are more qualified applicants also pursuing that job (the “minimally qualified” standard). Others, including the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in which Minnesota sits, require such placement only if the employee is the most qualified person for the position (the “most qualified” standard”).
SENIORITY SYSTEM GETS FIRST CLASS TREATMENT
Regardless of which standard is followed, courts must observe the United States Supreme Court ruling that in the absence special circumstances, a requested accommodation (such as a job transfer) that conflicts with established seniority rules is not “reasonable.”
With this in mind, we turn to Dunderdale v. United Airlines, a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (which follows the “minimally qualified” standard) decision addressing the question of what constitutes the type of special circumstances to justify a reassignment as an accommodation notwithstanding the existence of a bona fide seniority system. In that case, United Airlines Ramp Serviceman Michael Dunderdale became disabled and bid into a “Matrix” position, a job that the company specifically reserved for their permanently injured ramp servicemen.
At some point, the Airline changed their policy in accordance with their collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) to permit any employee to bid into the Matrix job if their seniority permitted. As a result, more senior non-disabled employees began bidding into the job, thereby bumping Dunderdale out of the position.
Dunderdale was then placed on a leave of absence during which he asked United on three different occasions to accommodate his disability by placing him into specifically designated “no-bid” jobs that he believed he could perform despite his medical restrictions. The company declined these requests because there were no openings in those jobs. When Dunderdale’s leave expired and his employment ended, he sued United in federal court claiming a failure to accommodate in violation of the ADA. The trial court ruled in favor of the company and Dunderdale appealed to the 7th Circuit.
Dunderdale claimed that the decision to change the policy reserving Matrix positions for disabled employees represented a failure to accommodate him and that he should have been allowed to remain in that job. He further suggested that United’s decision to change the policy without anyone having ever complained about the job being off limits to nondisabled employees demonstrated that this was indeed a special case.
REASSIGNMENT DEMAND IS GROUNDED
The Appeals Court disagreed, noting first that seniority systems are important and that disrupting them undermines employees’ expectations of consistent and uniform treatment. As such, exceptions should be recognized only when the employer has failed to maintain consistency in the system, such as by changing the system or making exceptions. In those instances, employees already have diminished expectations that the system will be followed and it therefore is appropriate to require an employer to also make an exception for a disabled employee.
In Dunderdale’s case, the court concluded that his “special” circumstances were not all that special. They found no tendency on United’s part to disregard or work around the seniority system. In fact, the decision to open the Matrix positions to all employees was intended to strengthen the system and enhance employee expectations for uniform treatment. That nobody had complained about the job being off limits was immaterial – United had legitimate business reasons for making the change and the Court declined to second-guess them.
Dunderdale then argued that United violated the ADA by not assigning him to one of the no-bid jobs, especially since openings arose in those jobs while he remained out on leave. Again, the Court disagreed, first by noting that when the requests were made, no vacancies existed so there was no job to which he could be assigned.
The Court then explained that even though the no-bid jobs changed hands occasionally, the company was not required to maintain a constant vigil for jobs opening up that might be suitable for Dunderdale. Instead, it was Dunderdale’s obligation to keep abreast of vacancies and make his accommodation request in conjunction with those openings. Since he failed to do so, his claims failed and the dismissal of his lawsuit was upheld.
BOTTOM LINE
Given the clarity of the Supreme Court’s decision favoring seniority systems in accommodation cases, this decision to uphold United’s seniority system is not surprising. However, the conclusion that employees are responsible for requesting openings and that employers need not monitor those openings on a constant basis is a very favorable development.
While this case arose elsewhere and does not technically apply to Minnesota cases, the federal courts often are influenced by their counterparts in other jurisdictions so there is reason for optimism that the federal courts in Minnesota will also choose to follow this rule when evaluating the duty of Minnesota employers to watch for openings suitable for their employees on disability leave.
For more information, please contact Lynn Mueller at lmueller@felhaber.com.