Employers Required to Assign Disabled Employees to Vacant Positions Over More Qualified Employees Absent Specific Showing of Undue Hardship

17 September 2012 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Many employers will need to change their practices for selecting employees for job vacancies due to a decision issued last week by a federal appeals court interpreting the ADA. In EEOC v. United Airlines, the Seventh Circuit addressed the issue of whether an employer has a duty under the ADA to assign an employee who is unable to do his/her current job due to a disability to a vacant position over more qualified candidates for the job. The Seventh Circuit, whose decisions apply in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana, has said that, in most circumstances, they do.In the United Airlines case, the employer had a policy, like many employers do, of selecting the most qualified candidate for a job vacancy. The court had previously held that an employer that had such a policy was not required by the ADA to make an exception to that policy for an employee who needed a job transfer because that employee could no longer do his/her job due to a disability. The court has now come to the opposite conclusion in the United Airlines case. Absent a seniority system governing job assignments, an employer must assign a disabled employee to a job vacancy if the employee meets the minimum qualifications for the job, unless the employer can make a particularized showing that it would be an undue hardship to do so. In other words, the disabled employee cannot be required to compete for the job if he/she is minimally qualified. Under this decision, simply presenting evidence that the candidate selected was more qualified for the job, and that the employer’s policy is to select the most qualified candidate, will not be enough to establish such undue hardship.

There is a split in authority on the issue in the federal courts and, as a result, it may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, in the meantime, employers need to be aware that choosing a better-qualified candidate for a job vacancy over a minimally qualified disabled employee who needs the job as an accommodation may be found to violate the ADA, unless the employer can establish it would be an undue hardship, under the particular circumstances, to assign the disabled employee to the job. Employers should check the status of the law where they are located before refusing to place a disabled employee into a job vacancy because the disabled employee is not the most qualified candidate for the job.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ