Supreme Court won’t hear United-ADA accommodations case
When it came to the decision over how United Airlines handles accommodating its employees who become unable to do their current jobs, it seems the 7th Circuit got it right.
May 29, 2013 at 08:43 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
When it came to the decision over how United Airlines handles accommodating its employees who become unable to do their current jobs, it seems the 7th Circuit got it right. At least, that's what the record will show, because this week the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
The case centered on United's policy that said if an employee becomes unable to do his job due to a disability, he could apply to transfer to another vacant position within the company. The policy guaranteed that employee an interview for the vacant position, but it didn't guarantee him the job. The policy stated that the selection process would be competitive.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued the airline in a California court for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming the policy failed to provide “reasonable accommodations” to disabled employees. The court transferred the case to Illinois, where it bounced around the courts for several years. The case eventually landed in the 7th Circuit, which held that disabled workers should be automatically reassigned to open positions for which they are qualified, unless the employer can establish an undue hardship that would result in that reassignment.
A panel of three judges wrote in its decision at the time, “The present case offers us the opportunity to correct this continuing error in our jurisprudence. We reverse and hold 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 asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, and yesterday, it declined to do so.
“We are gratified that the Seventh Circuit's ruling will stand,” EEOC spokeswoman Justine Lisser told Reuters. “We now look forward to litigating the case in the district court.”
Read more stories about this case on InsideCounsel:
Labor: Lessons from the EEOC's aggressive pursuit of ADA cases
Labor: Disabled employees have a leg up for reassignment to vacant positions in certain states
ADA requires reassignment as a reasonable accommodation for disabled employees
When it came to the decision over how
The case centered on United's policy that said if an employee becomes unable to do his job due to a disability, he could apply to transfer to another vacant position within the company. The policy guaranteed that employee an interview for the vacant position, but it didn't guarantee him the job. The policy stated that the selection process would be competitive.
The
A panel of three judges wrote in its decision at the time, “The present case offers us the opportunity to correct this continuing error in our jurisprudence. We reverse and hold 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 asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, and yesterday, it declined to do so.
“We are gratified that the Seventh Circuit's ruling will stand,” EEOC spokeswoman Justine Lisser told Reuters. “We now look forward to litigating the case in the district court.”
Read more stories about this case on InsideCounsel:
Labor: Lessons from the EEOC's aggressive pursuit of ADA cases
Labor: Disabled employees have a leg up for reassignment to vacant positions in certain states
ADA requires reassignment as a reasonable accommodation for disabled employees
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250