Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Airlines, Inc.
693 F.3d 760
7th Cir.2012Background
- EEOC appeals district court's dismissal and seeks to overrule Humiston-Keeling in light of Barnett.
- Seventh Circuit panel previously overruled Humiston-Keeling, suggesting en banc procedure under Rule 40(e).
- District court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) citing Humiston-Keeling; EEOC argues ADA requires reassignment to vacant positions when reasonable.
- United Airlines had 2003 Reasonable Accommodation Guidelines allowing transfer to vacant positions with competitive process.
- Barnett framework (two-step) governs whether reassignment is a reasonable accommodation; dispute over whether Humiston-Keeling survived Barnett.
- Court discusses Mays v. Principi and critiques its treatment of best-qualified vs. seniority-based reassignment in light of Barnett.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Humiston-Keeling overruled by Barnett governing reassignment? | EEOC: Barnett requires reassignment where ordinarily reasonable. | United: Humiston-Keeling remains controlling; Barnett creates narrow exception only in seniority contexts. | Remanded to apply Barnett framework; not bound to uphold Humiston-Keeling. |
| Does ADA require appointing a disabled employee to a vacant position absent undue hardship? | EEOC: Yes, if reasonable and no undue hardship. | United: Depends on Barnett factors and case specifics; not automatic. | Reversed in part; consideration of whether mandatory reassignment is ordinarily reasonable or case-specific hardship is needed. |
| How does Barnett's two-step analysis apply here? | EEOC: Step one shows reassignment ordinarily reasonable; step two undue hardship absent. | United: Barnett's framework must guide the district court on remand. | District court must perform Barnett step one and, if ordinarily reasonable, step two with United's system factors. |
| Did the district court properly apply Rule 12(b)(6) given the asserted ADA claim? | EEOC: Complaint plausibly alleges a reasonable accommodation via reassignment. | United: Humiston-Keeling controls; dismissal appropriate. | Reversed; remanded for Barnett-based analysis rather than dismissal on Humiston-Keeling grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Humiston-Keeling, 227 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 2000) (ADA does not require reassignment over better-qualified applicants in run of cases)
- Barnett v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 535 U.S. 391 (U.S. 2002) (two-step Barnett framework; ordinary reasonableness vs undue hardship in seniority context)
- Mays v. Principi, 301 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2002) (reassignment and Rehabilitation Act; related to Humiston-Keeling interpretation)
- Shapiro v. Township of Lakewood, 292 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2002) (summary of Barnett framework two-step approach)
- Aka v. Washington Hospital Center, 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc; reassignment considerations under ADA)
- Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 180 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc; discussion of best-qualified vs disability accommodations)
- Huber v. Wal-Mart, 486 F.3d 480 (8th Cir. 2007) (adoption of Humiston-Keeling reasoning without full Barnett analysis)