Michael Dunderdale v. United Airlines, Inc.
807 F.3d 849
7th Cir.2015Background
- Dunderdale was a United ramp serviceman with permanent restrictions (no lifting >30 lbs; no bending/stooping/kneeling; no driving). United assigned him to the Matrix position (sitting at a computer scanning luggage) from 2005–2011 as an accommodation.
- In May 2011 United changed bidding rules: Matrix became open to all ramp servicemen under the CBA seniority bidding system; Dunderdale lost the Matrix for insufficient seniority and was placed on Extended Illness Status (EIS).
- Dunderdale sought reassignment to certain no-bid positions (Auditor, Bulls-eye, Safety, Manpower Office); United told him no vacancies existed; he did not apply for other positions and declined two RAP (reasonable accommodation process) invitations.
- Dunderdale filed suit under the ADA alleging failure to reasonably accommodate; he later waived his retaliation claim and proceeded on the accommodation claim only.
- District court granted summary judgment for United; the Seventh Circuit majority affirmed, concluding (1) Dunderdale was a qualified individual (could perform essential functions with accommodation) but (2) United’s refusal to keep him in Matrix was lawful under the seniority-system rule and Dunderdale failed to show vacant no-bid positions or that United caused the interactive-process breakdown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Dunderdale a “qualified individual” under the ADA? | He could perform essential functions with reasonable accommodation (Matrix role demonstrated capability). | United conceded disability and knowledge but argued essential ramp duties (heavy lifting up to 70 lbs) were required. | Held: Yes — he was qualified because he performed Matrix successfully with accommodation. |
| Did United have to keep Dunderdale in the Matrix position despite the seniority change? | United’s prior practice of reserving Matrix for restricted employees created special circumstances; employer should have maintained status quo. | Barnett bars accommodations that violate a seniority system; opening Matrix to bidding was legitimate business decision. | Held: No — maintaining Dunderdale would have violated the seniority system; no special-circumstance exception proven. |
| Was United required to reassign Dunderdale to no-bid positions? | He identified no-bid jobs he could do; no-bid reassignment would not implicate seniority so United should have placed him there. | ADA reassignment duty is limited to vacant positions; plaintiff bears burden to show a vacancy existed. | Held: No — Dunderdale did not show any of the no-bid positions were vacant when he requested reassignment. |
| Did United fail the interactive (RAP) process? | United did not conduct a meaningful internal search or otherwise facilitate reassignment; referring him to Skynet and sending RAP invites was insufficient. | Dunderdale received RAP invitations and had access to Skynet; he refused RAP and did not apply for openings. | Held: No genuine dispute that United’s actions were adequate; Dunderdale’s failure to participate/identify vacancies defeats the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (an employer need not assign an employee to a position if doing so would violate a seniority system; special-circumstance exception exists)
- Mobley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 531 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2008) (evidence that accommodation enabled successful performance supports qualified-individual finding)
- Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 1996) (reassignment duty limited to vacant positions; employer not required to bump others)
- McCreary v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 132 F.3d 1159 (7th Cir. 1997) (vacancy must exist at time of adverse action to support reassignment claim)
- Weiler v. Household Finance Corp., 101 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 1996) (employer may discharge accommodation duties by granting leave and providing internal posting procedure, but active employer assistance in reassignment supports reasonableness)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. EEOC, 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2005) (employer must engage in interactive process in good faith; courts examine process as whole to determine cause of breakdown)
- Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp., 154 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 1998) (employer must identify alternative positions and assess employee’s ability to perform them with reasonable accommodation)
- Gratzl v. Office of the Chief Judges, 601 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2010) (employer need not preserve eliminated or materially changed positions to accommodate; cannot require stripping essential duties to create accommodation)