## Facts

- Robert Barnett worked for about ten years for U.S. Air at San Francisco International Airport, including in cargo.
- In 1990, Barnett suffered a serious back injury and, after returning from disability leave, could not perform the physical demands of cargo work.
- Using contractual seniority rights, Barnett transferred to a less physically demanding swing-shift mailroom job.
- In 1992, Barnett’s medical providers advised restrictions against heavy lifting and excessive bending and stated he could perform the mailroom job.
- Barnett learned that more senior employees planned to bid into the mailroom under the seniority system, which would bump him back to cargo positions he could not perform.
- Barnett requested, in writing, to remain in the mailroom as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA; U.S. Air kept him there temporarily but did not engage in substantive discussions.
- U.S. Air later removed Barnett from the mailroom and placed him on job-injury leave; it rejected Barnett’s additional proposed accommodations.
- Barnett filed an EEOC charge and sued, alleging failure to accommodate (including reassignment), failure to engage in an interactive process, and retaliation.

## Issues

1. Whether the ADA imposes a duty on employers to engage in a good-faith interactive process once an employee requests accommodation and the employer is on notice of a possible need.
2. Whether reassignment to a vacant position can be a reasonable accommodation when it conflicts with a collectively bargained seniority bidding system, and how seniority bears on undue hardship.
3. Whether Barnett produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on ADA retaliation.

## Decision

- The en banc Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for U.S. Air on the failure-to-accommodate and interactive-process claims and remanded for trial.
- The court held that an employer’s failure to participate in good faith in the interactive process can support liability if a reasonable accommodation could have been identified.
- The court held that a seniority system does not categorically bar reassignment; seniority is considered in the undue-hardship analysis and may present a factual question.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for U.S. Air on the retaliation claim for lack of sufficient evidence of retaliatory motive.

## Legal Principles

- The ADA’s reasonable-accommodation obligation includes a cooperative, interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential accommodations once the employer has notice and the employee requests accommodation.
- Both employer and employee must participate in the interactive process in good faith; an employer may not avoid liability by remaining passive or rejecting proposals without meaningful engagement.
- “Reassignment to a vacant position” can qualify as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA; it is not limited to a last-resort remedy as a matter of law.
- A collectively bargained seniority system is a significant factor in evaluating whether reassignment would impose an undue hardship, but it is not an automatic defense at the summary-judgment stage.
- ADA retaliation claims follow a burden-shifting framework requiring evidence of a causal link and, if a legitimate reason is offered, evidence of pretext.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Barnett’s evidence could support a finding that U.S. Air failed to engage in the ADA’s required interactive process and failed to provide a reasonable accommodation, and that the presence of a seniority system did not categorically foreclose reassignment; however, Barnett’s retaliation claim failed for insufficient proof of retaliatory causation or pretext.


Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)