US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett
The Supreme Court ruled that a disabled employee's request to keep a job usually is not a "reasonable accommodation" under the Americans with Disabilities Act if granting it would break the rules of an employer's seniority system.
The decision sets a general rule favoring seniority systems in most disability-accommodation disputes, while still letting a worker point to special circumstances -- like a seniority system full of exceptions -- to show an exception would be reasonable in his particular case.
“The plaintiff remains free to present evidence of special circumstances that make "reasonable" a seniority rule exception in the particular case.”
The core rule letting a worker overcome a seniority system's usual presumption of reasonableness.
How it got here: A federal trial court granted US Airways summary judgment based on its seniority system; an en banc Ninth Circuit reversed, and US Airways asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Robert Barnett injured his back working for US Airways and moved to a less demanding mailroom job under his seniority rights. When employees with more seniority later sought to bid for that same mailroom position, Barnett asked US Airways to let him stay as a disability accommodation. After considering the request for months, US Airways refused and Barnett lost his job, prompting his ADA lawsuit.
The question before the Court
Could a disabled airline worker force his employer to keep him in a job that another, more senior employee was entitled to bid for under the company's seniority system?
The Court's answer
No -- generally an employer does not have to bump the seniority system to keep a disabled employee in a job. The Court ruled that when a disabled worker's requested accommodation would violate an employer's established seniority system, that conflict alone ordinarily shows the accommodation is not "reasonable" under the ADA, entitling the employer to win at summary judgment.
That is not the end of the story, though. The employee can still defeat summary judgment by pointing to special circumstances in his particular case -- for example, that the employer changes its seniority rules often or that the system already has many exceptions -- that would make an exception reasonable despite the general rule favoring seniority. The case was sent back so Barnett could try to make that showing.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Employers with seniority systems, especially in industries like airlines, trucking, and manufacturing, can generally rely on those systems to defeat many disability-accommodation requests without a case-by-case hardship showing. Disabled workers seeking reassignment now bear the burden of proving unusual circumstances, making it harder to keep a job that a more senior coworker wants.
What changes now
The case returns to the lower courts, where Robert Barnett will have the chance to present evidence of special circumstances -- such as how the mailroom position became open or how often US Airways changed its seniority policy -- to show that an exception to the seniority system would have been reasonable in his case. The ruling is a final merits decision establishing the general legal framework, but it does not resolve who ultimately wins.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Barnett's own accommodation request was actually reasonable; it only set the general legal standard and sent the case back for further proceedings. It also left open exactly what kinds of "special circumstances" would be enough to overcome a seniority system's usual presumption of reasonableness.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Stevens
Justice Stevens joined the majority but wrote separately to note the Ninth Circuit correctly rejected US Airways' absolute rule and correctly found a triable issue over whether US Airways failed to engage in an interactive process about Barnett's proposed accommodations -- a holding untouched by the Court's opinion. He listed several unresolved factual questions Barnett must address on remand.
Concurrence — Justice O'Connor
Justice O'Connor would have used a different test, tying an accommodation's reasonableness to whether the seniority system was legally enforceable rather than merely to whether it existed. She joined the majority's rule anyway to avoid stalemate, believing it would usually reach the same result since unenforceable seniority systems typically contain the same exceptions and disclaimers her test would require.
Dissent — Justice Scalia
“I have no idea what this means.”Scalia's objection to the majority's vague standard for when a seniority exception 'will not likely make a difference.'
Justice Scalia argued the ADA only requires removing obstacles that arise specifically because of an employee's disability, not neutral rules like seniority systems that burden disabled and non-disabled workers alike. He criticized the majority's rebuttable presumption as vague and unworkable, saying he had "no idea" what would count as a departure that would not undermine seniority expectations.
Dissent — Justice Souter
Justice Souter argued the ADA, unlike Title VII, contains no explicit seniority-system exemption, and its legislative history treats seniority as merely one relevant factor rather than a near-automatic trump card, especially for a seniority policy the employer imposed unilaterally and could change at will. He would have found Barnett's request reasonable and let US Airways try to prove undue hardship, and would have affirmed the Ninth Circuit.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court first rejected US Airways' argument that any accommodation conflicting with a neutral workplace rule, like a seniority system, is automatically unreasonable, noting that the ADA's whole point is to require preferential treatment sometimes so disabled workers can access opportunities others already have.
- The Court also rejected Barnett's opposite argument that a seniority conflict is legally irrelevant to reasonableness and only bears on the separate question of undue hardship, explaining that the plain meaning of "reasonable" is broader than mere "effectiveness" of an accommodation.
- The Court adopted a middle path used by many lower courts: a plaintiff need only show an accommodation is reasonable "in the run of cases" -- that is, ordinarily workable -- to survive summary judgment, after which the employer must show a case-specific undue hardship.
- Applying that framework to seniority systems specifically, the Court reasoned that seniority systems create important, often relied-upon employee expectations about job security and predictable advancement, so an accommodation that breaks those rules will ordinarily be unreasonable without more.
- The Court concluded that an employer's showing that an accommodation would violate an established seniority system is, by itself, ordinarily enough to win summary judgment, but the employee may still defeat that showing with evidence of special circumstances -- such as a seniority system riddled with exceptions or one the employer frequently changes -- that make an exception reasonable in that particular case.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (432 U.S. 63)
Majority relied on this Title VII seniority case as support for treating seniority systems as usually controlling in accommodation disputes.