## Facts

- United Airlines adopted “Reasonable Accommodation Guidelines” for employees who, because of disability, could not perform the essential functions of their current jobs even with accommodation.
- Under the guidelines, a disabled employee seeking a transfer as an accommodation had to compete for vacant positions under a competitive selection process.
- The policy provided only a limited preference: the disabled employee would receive preference over an equally qualified applicant, but would not be automatically placed into the vacancy.
- The EEOC sued on behalf of a class of disabled employees, alleging the policy violated the ADA’s recognition of “reassignment to a vacant position” as a form of reasonable accommodation.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, following then-binding circuit precedent holding that the ADA does not require reassignment that overrides an employer’s best-qualified selection policy.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reconsidered its precedent in light of intervening Supreme Court authority and issued a revised panel opinion overruling its prior circuit case and remanding.

## Issues

1. Whether the ADA’s “reassignment to a vacant position” ordinarily requires an employer to place a qualified disabled employee into a vacant job as a reasonable accommodation, rather than merely permitting the employee to compete.
2. Whether a neutral “best-qualified applicant” transfer policy categorically excuses an employer from providing reassignment as an accommodation.
3. How the Supreme Court’s framework for reassignment accommodations affects prior circuit precedent rejecting mandatory reassignment.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit vacated its earlier panel disposition, overruled prior circuit precedent, and reversed the district court’s dismissal.
- The court held that the ADA generally requires an employer to assign (place) a qualified disabled employee to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship.
- The court rejected the view that allowing the employee to compete under a best-qualified policy satisfies the statutory concept of “reassignment.”
- The case was remanded for further proceedings applying the reassignment-as-placement standard, subject to case-specific defenses.

## Legal Principles

- “Reassignment to a vacant position” under the ADA is ordinarily a presumptively reasonable accommodation that involves placement into the vacancy for which the employee is qualified.
- An employer’s neutral workplace rules (including best-qualified selection policies) may have to yield to reasonable accommodation obligations; equal treatment in procedure may be insufficient where the ADA requires an adjustment.
- Reassignment is not required if the employer proves the accommodation would impose an undue hardship or is otherwise unreasonable in the specific context.
- The duty is limited to vacant positions for which the employee is qualified; the employer need not create a job or displace an incumbent.
- Circuit precedent inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s reassignment framework was overruled and replaced with a presumption favoring reassignment, subject to rebuttal.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that the ADA generally requires placing a qualified disabled employee into a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation, even when doing so departs from a best-qualified transfer policy, unless the employer shows undue hardship or other case-specific grounds making reassignment unreasonable.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. United Airlines, Inc., 693 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2012)