Six later, the Supreme Court confirmed the conclusion in that reassignment is Williams ordinarily a reasonable accommodation. In 535 U.S. 391 (2002), the U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, Supreme Court considered whether the ADA required an employer to grant an employee’s reassignment request when the reassignment would have required the employer to depart from a well-established seniority system. The Court concluded that an employer ordinarily would not have to depart from its seniority system to provide reassignment as an accommodation, because such a departure generally would not be at 402−03. The Court explained, Id. “reasonable.” however, that simple fact that an accommodation [like reassignment] would provide a “[t]he the sense that it would permit the worker with a disability to violate a rule that ‘preference’—in others must obey—cannot in and of itself, automatically show that the accommodation is not at 398 (emphasis omitted), because will sometimes prove necessary id. ‘reasonable,’” “preferences to achieve the [ADA]’s basic equal opportunity goal,” at 397. id. The Supreme introduced a two-step process for determining whether an accommodation request, including a reassignment request, is reasonable as a matter of law: First, the plaintiff must show that her reassignment request reasonable on its face, ordinarily i.e., “seems or in the run of cases.” at 401. As the Fourth Circuit noted in Congress’s inclusion of Id. Williams, to a vacant position” as a reasonable accommodation in the statute indicates that it is “reassignment ordinarily reasonable. 101 F.3d at 350. If the plaintiff shows that her request is Williams, reasonable, the burden shifts to her employer to show (typically case-specific) “special circumstances that demonstrate undue hardship in the particular circumstances” and justify a refusal to reassign. 535 U.S. at 402. If the employer is unable to show special Barnett, circumstances, such as a seniority policy, that make reassignment unusually difficult, the plaintiff must prevail. Thus, the reassignment dicta in Myers is irreconcilable with Supreme Court See id.
Six later, the Supreme Court confirmed the conclusion in Williams that reassignment is ordinarily a reasonable accommodation. In U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002), the Supreme Court considered whether the ADA required an employer to grant an employee’s reassignment request when the reassignment would have required the employer to depart from a well-established seniority system. The Court concluded that an employer ordinarily would not have to depart from its seniority system to provide reassignment as an accommodation, because such a departure generally would not be “reasonable.” Id. at 402−03. The Court explained, however, that “[t]he simple fact that an accommodation [like reassignment] would provide a ‘preference’—in the sense that it would permit the worker with a disability to violate a rule that others must obey—cannot in and of itself, automatically show that the accommodation is not ‘reasonable,’” id. at 398 (emphasis omitted), because “preferences will sometimes prove necessary to achieve the [ADA]’s basic equal opportunity goal,” id. at 397. The Supreme introduced a two-step process for determining whether an accommodation request, including a reassignment request, is reasonable as a matter of law: First, the plaintiff must show that her reassignment request “seems reasonable on its face, i.e., ordinarily or in the run of cases.” Id. at 401. As the Fourth Circuit noted in Williams, Congress’s inclusion of “reassignment to a vacant position” as a reasonable accommodation in the statute indicates that it is ordinarily reasonable. Williams, 101 F.3d at 350. If the plaintiff shows that her request is reasonable, the burden shifts to her employer to show “special (typically case-specific) circumstances that demonstrate undue hardship in the particular circumstances” and justify a refusal to reassign. Barnett, 535 U.S. at 402. If the employer is unable to show special circumstances, such as a seniority policy, that make reassignment unusually difficult, the plaintiff must prevail. See id. Thus, the reassignment dicta in Myers is irreconcilable with Supreme Court
richmond_support_sj.docx