U.S Airways, Inc. vs. Barnett, 122 S. Ct. 1516 (2002)
Robert Barnett a worker at U.S Airways in 1990’s injured his back while working s a cargo handler. He transferred to mailroom, a less physical demanding position in the same company, but after working in this position for two years, the company opened a bid for seniority based employees. Barnett’s seniors were no exception, and, therefore, planned to put in their bids. On hearing, this Barnett asked his employer to let him keep his position by making an exception of the bids to the mailroom so that his disability could be accommodated. After five months of consideration, U.S Airlines declined Barnett’s request, and opted not to grant him the exception (National Council on Disability, 2003).
Barnett filed a suit with claims that he was a disabled individual capable of performing in the mailroom, and that the company was discriminating him by refusing to assign him the job.
The U.S Airways appealed to Supreme Court after the district court provided that the seniority system was an undue hardship analysis factor. The company wanted the Supreme Court to become clear on whether, ADA provided an employer the jurisdiction to reassign a disabled employee to accommodate the employee, even if there is availability of other bona fide employees.
Justice Breyer provided that ADA does not provide for assignment of a disabled employee in a position where another employee is entitled to, under an employer’s seniority, but might do so in some circumstances. The court indicated that reasonable accommodations constitute to ‘preference’ to offer a person with a disability equal opportunities as any other employee. The court rejected the ‘automatic exception’ of seniority provision (National Council on Disability, 2003).
How ADA applies to this case.
In this case, the U.S Airlines were not bound to ‘automatic exception’ since, under its policy; there was no provision that disabled employees be given preferential treatment in vacant positions (National Council on Disability, 2003). However, ADA provides that if a disabled employee can prove his/her ability to be reassigned to a vacant position, then he/she is entitled to receive ‘automatic exception’ (Gold, 2011). Barnett had not signaled any undue hardship in the mailroom, except if moved to other duties. U.S. Airlines could not prove any undue hardship reported by Barnett.
In such a case, ADA provides that the reassignment should be automatic or there should be an automatic exception for the disabled without subjecting them to the competition from the nondisabled employees. The Supreme Court ruling for Barnett was, therefore, in consideration to the provisions in ADA, and Labor Law. It provided that Barnett qualified for ‘preference’ in the sense that it would permit disabled workers to violate some rules, which non-disabled employees must obey. Under ADA Barnett was to be reassigned in a reasonable accommodation provision since his post had not been declared vacant, but had been put ‘open’ for bidding (Gold, 2011).
Reference.
Top of Form
Gold, S. D. (2011). Americans with Disabilities Act. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark.
Bottom of Form
National Council on Disability, Living, Learning & Earning. (March 5, 2003). Policy Brief Series No. 10, Reasonable Accommodation after Barnett. Work cited,
http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2003/March52003
