Kallail v. Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18557

Kallail, who has Type I diabetes and peripheral vascular disease, worked at Alliant Energy since 1996, ultimately as a Resource Coordinator at the Cedar Rapids DDC.
The DDC operates on a rotating 12-hour and 8-hour shift schedule, with teams of two on a nine-week cycle, including day and night shifts and emergency call-ins.
In Nov. 2004, she sought a reasonable accommodation (straight day shifts) due to health risks from rotating shifts; her physician recommended straight day shifts.
Alliant denied the straight-day-shift accommodation in Apr. 2005, citing essential need for rotating shifts and offering reassignment to a vacant straight-day position instead.
Kallail pursued reassignment, but ultimately elected leave and later disability benefits; Alliant continued to explore open positions but she did not accept offers.
Kallail sued in district court alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and ICRA; the district court granted summary judgment for Alliant, which she appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the rotating shift an essential function of the Resource Coordinator job?	Kallail contends rotating shifts are not essential and can be accommodated.	Alliant argues rotating shift is essential for operations and training.	Yes; rotating shift is an essential function.
Can Kallail be accommodated in her current position?	Straight-day shift would allow accommodation without eliminating essential duties.	Accommodation cannot eliminate the rotating shift as an essential function.	No; no feasible accommodation in current position.
Was reassignment to a vacant position a valid accommodation?	Reassignment should enable her to work without the rotating shift if qualified.	Reassignment offered; plaintiff must show the offered position is inferior and open comparable vacancy.	Alliant offered reassignment; plaintiff did not show an inferior or open comparable position.
Did Alliant engage in a proper interactive process?	Employer failed to engage in good-faith interactive process.	Alliant reasonably engaged by offering the reassignment option.	Alliant reasonably engaged; no failure to engage in good-faith interactive process.
Did Alliant illegally fail to hire for the DDC Administrator position due to disability?	Employer refused to hire due to disability; ADA prohibits such actions.	Claim not raised below and not addressed on appeal; cannot be considered now.	Not reviewed on appeal; affirmed on other grounds.

Rehrs v. Iams Co., 486 F.3d 353 (8th Cir. 2007) (likely essential functions considerations for rotating shifts)
Fjellstad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 1999) (employer not required to reallocate essential functions to accommodate)
Benson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 62 F.3d 1108 (8th Cir. 1995) (employer can determine essential functions and business needs)
Burchett v. Target Corp., 340 F.3d 510 (8th Cir. 2003) (facial showing that reasonable accommodation is possible and adequate)
Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan. City, 214 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2000) (promotion not required to satisfy ADA; reassignment as accommodation)
Chalfant v. Titan Distrib., Inc., 475 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2007) (disability discrimination; scope of hiring considerations)
Haber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 486 F.3d 480 (8th Cir. 2007) (ADA prima facie case framework (disability, qualified, adverse action))
Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2003) (cannot perform essential functions without reasonable accommodation)
Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 297 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2002) (not addressing new ADA claim not raised below)
Kallail, Terri v. Alliant Energy Corporate Services, — (—) (primary case here; no official reporter citation included in text)