Share
In Emrick v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., the district court held that: (1) it is not per se unreasonable to accommodate a disabled employee in violation of a seniority system; (2) there were genuine issues of fact as to the employer's attempts to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff; and (3) where an employer does not regularly transfer employees between its facilities, it is not required to do so to accommodate a disabled employee.
In 1988, Emrick was hired as a clerk for Libbey-Owens-Ford Co. (LOF) at one of its plants. In 1990, Emrick was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. He informed LOF and stated he was fully able to continue in his position. In 1992, LOF went through a reduction in force and attempted to reassign Emrick, who rejected the offered positions and informed LOF of new medical restrictions. LOF was unable to find accommodating positions. Emrick filed a complaint with the EEOC and filed suit under the ADA. The district court reviewed LOF's Motions for Summary Judgment.
The district court first addressed LOF's claim that the ADA does not require employers to override a seniority system to reasonably accommodate a disabled employee. The court noted that case law under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 supported LOF's position. The court found no ADA case law on point, but stated that the legislative history of the ADA disclosed congressional concern over reasonable accommodation of employees when that accommodation would conflict with a collective bargaining agreement. In particular, the provisions stated that "an employer cannot use a collective bargaining agreement to accomplish what it otherwise would be prohibited from doing under [the Act]." The court ruled that where reassignment of a disabled employee would conflict with a seniority system or collective bargaining agreement, the conflict should be weighed in evaluating the reasonableness of an accommodation. Thus, summary judgment was denied on this issue.
The district court then addressed LOF's claim that it attempted to reasonably accommodate Emrick, but that its efforts were refused. The ADA requires employers to make efforts to reasonably accommodate qualified employees with a disability to ensure equal opportunities in the workplace. Among the means by which an employer may accommodate such an employee is reassignment to a vacant position. The ADA does not require an employer to "bump" another employee to create a vacancy. However, where another employee offers to voluntarily relinquish a position and accept reassignment, thus enabling a disabled employee to have the vacated position, it may be a valid means of attempting reasonable accommodation. Because Emrick presented evidence that one or more of LOF's employees was allegedly willing to offer their position to Emrick, there was a genuine issue of fact regarding whether LOF attempted to reasonably accommodate him. Thus, summary judgment was denied on this issue.
The district court also addressed Emrick's claim that LOF was required to transfer him to another LOF facility as a means of reasonably accommodating his disability. The court held that where an employer does not regularly transfer employees between facilities, the ADA does not impose a duty to do so to accommodate disabled employees. Thus, partial summary judgment was granted on this issue.
Emrick v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 875 F. Supp. 393 (E.D. Tex. 1995).