Supreme Court Rules Seniority System Trumps ADA
 
June 26, 2002
 

Employers generally are not required to violate or make exceptions to employer-established, bona fide seniority systems to accommodate a disabled worker, the United States Supreme Court has ruled.  In the first case in which the Supreme Court has addressed the “reasonable accommodation” provision of the ADA, a sharply divided Court ruled 5-4 in U.S. Airways v. Barnett that that the defendant airline did not have to give a disabled baggage handler a mailroom job as a “reasonable accommodation,” when two employees with more seniority also were seeking the same job. 

Background Facts

Robert Barnett was employed by U.S. Airways at the San Francisco International Airport. The airline had unilaterally implemented a seniority system that determined workers’ assignments, shifts, promotions and transfers.  In 1990, Barnett injured his back while working in a cargo position.  Because he could no longer perform the physical requirements of the cargo job, he used his seniority to obtain a transfer to the mailroom.  In August 1992, Barnett learned that two co-workers with more seniority were planning to transfer to the mailroom — which meant he would have to return to a cargo job. Barnett asked that he be allowed to stay in the mailroom as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.  Relying on its seniority policy, U.S. Airways denied his request and placed him on leave.

Barnett sued U.S. Airways under the ADA, alleging the company had unlawfully refused to reasonably accommodate his disability. The trial judge dismissed the case, finding that straying from the seniority system “would result in undue hardship to both the company and its non-disabled employees.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the airline’s seniority system is merely “a factor in the undue hardship analysis,” and not dispositive. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve a conflict in the circuit courts as to whether the ADA’s reasonable accommodation provision requires employers to make exceptions to a seniority system. 

Supreme Court Decision

The Court ruled 5-4 that a seniority system such as that adopted by U.S. Airways “will prevail in the run of cases” over an accommodation demand that would violate the system.  Importantly, the Court created a rebuttable presumption in favor of seniority systems, explaining that the ADA does not require proof on a case-by-case basis that a seniority system should prevail. The majority explained that a seniority system “provides important employee benefits by creating, and fulfilling, employee expectations of fair, uniform treatment.”  “To require the typical employer to show more than the existence of a seniority system might well undermine the employee’s expectations of consistent uniform treatment - expectations upon which the seniority system’s benefits depend.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that an employer’s showing that a requested accommodation violates its seniority system is “ordinarily sufficient” to demonstrate that the accommodation is not reasonable.

The fact that U.S. Airways’ seniority system was unilaterally imposed by management and not the result of collective bargaining did not affect the Court’s opinion.  According to the Court, “the relevant seniority system advantages, and related difficulties that result from violations of seniority rules, are not limited to collectively bargained systems.”

The Court explained however, that an employee may be able to rebut the presumption in favor of the seniority system by showing “special circumstances that make reasonable a seniority rule exception.”  Such a situation might arise when “the employer, having retained the right to change the seniority system unilaterally, exercises that right fairly frequently, reducing employee expectations that the system will be followed - to the point where one more departure, needed to accommodate an individual with a disability, will not likely make a difference.”

Impact on Employers

The Barnett decision is helpful to employers because it means that an employer is generally entitled to follow its seniority policy and refuse to make an exception to comply with an ADA accommodation request. Seniority systems that are well established and consistently applied are likely to trump most accommodation requests.  It is also important to note that the Barnett decision dealt with a seniority system unilaterally imposed by the employer, not with one contained in a collective bargaining agreement.  The Court appeared to approve the numerous lower court decisions unanimously holding that the ADA does not require employers to make any exceptions to collectively bargained seniority rules.

However, there almost certainly will be litigation about what kind of “special circumstances” require employers to make exceptions to their seniority policies, and the Court’s failure to adopt a clear rule will encourage employees to claim that “special circumstances” exist in almost every case. Therefore, employers with seniority systems should refrain from making regular changes or exceptions to their systems, and should consider reviewing their systems with labor counsel to make them more challenge-resistant. n

For more information, contact Todd Steenson at 888-688-8500 or via e-mail by clicking on his name.

Related Practices