US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett

Last updated
US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Full case nameUS Airways, Inc. v. Barnett

US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, (2002), was a case in the United States Supreme Court that dealt with issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and reasonable accommodations in the workplace. [1] [2] The Court held that even requests for accommodation that might seem reasonable on their face, such as a transfer to a different position, can be rendered unreasonable if they would require a violation of the company's seniority system. [3]

While the Court ruled that, in general, a violation of a seniority system renders an otherwise reasonable accommodation unreasonable, a plaintiff can present evidence that, despite the seniority system, the accommodation is reasonable in the specific case at hand, for example, the plaintiff could offer evidence that the seniority system is so often disregarded that another exception wouldn't make a difference. [4] The court also held that the defendant need not provide proof that this particular application of the seniority system should prevail, and that, once the defendant showed that the accommodation violated the seniority system, it fell to the plaintiff (Barnett) to show it was nevertheless reasonable. [3] The case involved Robert Barnett, a US Airways employee who injured his back, rendering him physically unable to perform his cargo-handling job. [3] Using his seniority, Barnett transferred to a less-demanding mailroom job. However, this position later became open to seniority-based bidding and was bid on by more senior employees. Barnett requested the accommodation of being allowed to remain in the less-demanding mailroom job. US Airways denied his request, and he ultimately lost his job. [1]

The Supreme Court decision invalidated both the approach of the district court, which found that the mere presence and importance of the seniority system was enough to warrant a summary judgment in favor of US Airways, as well as the circuit court's approach that interpreted 'reasonable accommodation' as 'effective accommodation'. [1] This case clarified the standards surrounding reasonable accommodations under the ADA and emphasized the importance of considering the impact of seniority systems in employment decisions.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990</span> 1990 U.S. civil rights law

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal, and later sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the ADA also requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Laches (equity)</span> Unreasonable delay by a plaintiff in bringing their claim

In common-law legal systems, laches is a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, particularly in regard to equity. This means that it is an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy.

Copyright misuse is an equitable defence to copyright infringement in the United States based upon the doctrine of unclean hands. The misuse doctrine provides that the copyright holder engaged in abusive or improper conduct in exploiting or enforcing the copyright will be precluded from enforcing his rights against the infringer. Copyright misuse is often comparable to and draws from the older and more established doctrine of patent misuse, which bars a patentee from obtaining relief for infringement when he extends his patent rights beyond the limited monopoly conferred by the law.

Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional, insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental health law</span>

Mental health law includes a wide variety of legal topics and pertain to people with a diagnosis or possible diagnosis of a mental health condition, and to those involved in managing or treating such people. Laws that relate to mental health include:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Civil Rights Department</span> State government housing agency in California

The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) is an agency of California state government charged with the protection of residents from employment, housing and public accommodation discrimination, and hate violence. It is the largest state civil rights agency in the United States. It also provides representation to the victims of hate crimes. CRD has a director who is appointed by the governor of California and maintains a total of five offices and five educational clinics throughout the state. Today, it is considered part of the California Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency.

Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558 (1990), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that an action by an employee for a breach of a labor union's duty of fair representation entitled him to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

Dennis Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

<i>National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.</i>

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, 452 F. Supp. 2d 946, was a class action lawsuit in the United States that was filed on February 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, and subsequently moved to federal court. The case challenged whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, specifically Title III's provisions prohibiting discrimination by "places of public accommodation", apply to websites and/or the Internet, or are restricted to physical places.

In employment law, a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) (US) or bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) (Canada) or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) (UK) is a quality or an attribute that employers are allowed to consider when making decisions on the hiring and retention of employees—a quality that when considered in other contexts would constitute discrimination in violation of civil rights employment law. Such qualifications must be listed in the employment offering.

A reasonable accommodation is an adjustment made in a system to accommodate or make fair the same system for an individual based on a proven need. That need can vary. Accommodations can be religious, physical, mental or emotional, academic, or employment-related, and law often mandates them. Each country has its own system of reasonable accommodations. The United Nations use this term in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, saying refusal to make accommodation results in discrimination. It defines a "reasonable accommodation" as:

... necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms;

An emotional support animal (ESA) is an animal that provides relief to individuals with "psychiatric disability through companionship." Emotional support animals may be any type of pet, and are not recognized as service animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Job Accommodation Network</span>

The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) is a service provided by the United States Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP). JAN is one of several ODEP technical assistance centers. JAN facilitates the employment and retention of workers with disabilities by providing employers, employment providers, people with disabilities, their family members, and other interested parties with information on job accommodations, entrepreneurship, and related subjects. JAN's efforts are in support of the employment, including self-employment and small business ownership, of people with disabilities.

Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 227 F. Supp. 2d 1312, was a decision of the United States District Court on 18 August 2002. It concerned the nature of Title III of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The court determined that Southwest Airlines website is not a “place of public accommodation” as defined in Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case determined that the Southwest Airlines internet website was not in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerned with a physical existence and hence cannot govern what it is in cyberspace. Judge Seitz also explained that the “virtual ticket counter” Southwest Airlines Co’s website was a virtual construct and hence not a “public place of accommodation” and as such “To expand the ADA to cover "virtual" spaces would be to create new rights without well-defined standards".

<i>Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc.</i> US legal case

Ouellette v. Viacom, No. 9:10-cv-00133; 2011 WL 1882780, found the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) did not create liability for service providers that take down non-infringing works. This case limited the claims that can be filed against service providers by establishing immunity for service providers' takedown of fair use material, at least from grounds under the DMCA. The court left open whether another "independent basis of liability" could serve as legal grounds for an inappropriate takedown.

Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held in a 5–4 decision that a pretrial detainee must prove only that force used by police is excessive according to an objective standard, not that a police officer was subjectively aware that the force used was unreasonable.

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), is a US labor law case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the definition of a "hostile" or "abusive" work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that a determination about whether a work environment is hostile or abusive requires a consideration of all relevant circumstances.

Horvath v. City of Leander, No. 18-51011 is a legal case decided in 2020 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that an employer may require employees to receive vaccinations, so long as the employer makes reasonable accommodations to religious objections, even if the accommodations offered are not ideal for the employee.

Halpern v. Wake Forest University Health Sciences was a court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Wake Forest University Health Sciences. The medical school expelled a student due to ongoing unprofessional conduct, which the student attributed to ADHD and anxiety disorder. The court held that professionalism was an essential requirement of a medical school program in part because "inappropriate and disruptive behavior by physicians increases adverse patient outcomes".

References

  1. 1 2 3 US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002).
  2. "US AIRWAYS, INC. V. BARNETT". Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on February 6, 2017. Retrieved September 20, 2016.
  3. 1 2 3 "US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis". Community. Retrieved 2023-01-10.
  4. Befort, Stephen (2003-01-01). "Reasonable Accommodation and Reassignment under the Americans with Disabilities Act: Answers, Questions, and Suggested Solutions after U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett". Ariz. L. Rev.