Supreme Court Rules on Barnett case:

Back to Supreme Court information page
Read the ruling

The United Supreme Court has issued yet another blow for workers with disabilities. In its decision in US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, a divided Court held (5-4) that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) generally does not require an employer to reassign an employee with a disability to a vacant position in violation of the company's seniority policy. The Court did, however, provide that if an employee can show that in his case, such a reassignment would not undermine the purposes of a seniority policy, then the employer would be required to provide the reassignment as a reasonable accommodation. The Court suggested that such an exception may be warranted where, for example, the policy was not regularly or consistently enforced or the company regularly and unilaterally changed the terms of the policy.

In this case, a cargo loading employee, Mr. Barnett sought to be reassigned to a vacant mailroom position after injuring his back on the job. While the airline considered his request for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, Mr. Barnett worked in the mailroom position for five months. Still the airline denied his request, stating that under its seniority policy, another more senior employee was entitled to the position. Mr. Barnett then sued his former employer, claiming that under the ADA, the airline was required to reassign him to the vacant position even if the transfer would violate the seniority policy. A trial court will now decide whether special circumstances exist in this case to justify overriding US Airways seniority policy.

This decision is likely to have a profound impact for all people with disabilities, particularly for people with epilepsy. Reassignment is often an effective accommodation. In some cases, the reassignments are only temporary. For example, a person may request to be transferred to a non-driving position until his seizures have been controlled for the time period required by state driving laws. In other cases, the individual may seek a permanent reassignment. For example, an individual whose job requires climbing ladders may seek a job reassignment to a position requiring no climbing after he is diagnosed with epilepsy. Now, regardless of whether the reassignment sought is temporary or permanent, an employer will generally not be required to grant the request if the reassignment would violate the company's seniority policy. Even if the employer was not required to reassign the employee, it would, however, be required to provide some type of reasonable accommodation.

Under the ADA, an employer must provide a reasonable accommodation to an individual with a disability who can perform the essential functions of the job with or without such an accommodation. In some situations, as the Court noted in the Barnett decision, an employer may even need to modify otherwise neutral office policies in order to provide an effective accommodation to an individual with a disability. This may include, for example, making exceptions to "break from work rules" to enable an individual with a disability who needs a rest period or who needs to visit a doctor to take the necessary breaks. The Court also acknowledged that in some situations providing a reasonable accommodation may give people with disabilities preferential treatment, but pointed out that such preferential treatment is necessary to serve the ADA's goal of creating equal opportunity. The Court's guidance on this issue is particularly important because it is the first time that the Supreme Court has discussed reasonable accommodations in the workplace.

©2002 While this material is designed to provide accurate and current information on the subject matter involved, the Epilepsy Foundation and the authors cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication. This fact sheet is not a legal document and does not provide legal advice or opinion. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.