Includes bibliographical references.
|Statement||by Amy R. Stein.|
|Series||Legal research guides -- v. 52|
|LC Classifications||KF3469 .S75 2009|
|The Physical Object|
|LC Control Number||2008055115|
] MANDATORY REASSIGNMENT UNDER THE ADA As suggested by the opening quote from Professor Laura Rovner, courts have recognized that physical or communicative accommoda-tions are needed to protect the rights of disabled individuals.6 Today most employers provide auxiliary aids and services or modify policies. The employer believed that, if he had a vacant position and the disabled employee was qualified for it, he had to give the job to that employee. While reassignment to a vacant position may be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, there is no requirement that you must reassign the employee. Let’s see if we can clear up this misconception. Some time ago we addressed reassignment as an accommodation under the ADA. We wrote: We wrote: When good faith efforts during the interactive process fail to yield an effective accommodation for the employee’s current position, the ADA requires an employer to consider a possible accommodation that employers frequently overlook or don’t. She filed a lawsuit under Title VII and the ADA. The ADA provides that the term disability shall not include, among other things, “gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments.” Accordingly, Cabela’s moved to dismiss Blatt’s ADA complaint on the grounds that her gender identity disorder was not a covered disability.
reassignment under the ADA. The practical effect of the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc.2 is that employers will need to consider far more carefully any reassignment request by an employee with a disability so long as that employee is minimally qualified for the. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for qualified employees with disabilities, and lists several examples of possible accommodations, including "reassignment to a vacant position."1 Over the years, courts and employers have struggled with the extent of this obligation when an employee with a disability . Last month the United States Supreme Court refused to resolve the circuit split that has evolved over the issue of whether there is an affirmative duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") to accommodate a disabled individual through reassignment to another vacant job, without regard to whether there is a more qualified applicant for the same job. Under the ADA, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. Qualified employees are those who hold the necessary degrees, skills, and experience for the job; and who can perform its essential functions, with or without an : Barbara Kate Repa.
revisions based on the expanded legal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) of and guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (29 CFR , Ma , pages ). According to the court, the use of the word “may” implies that reassignment will be reasonable in some circumstances but not others. The court also noted its well-settled ADA precedent that employers are only required to provide alternative employment opportunities that are reasonably available under the employer’s existing policies. by Burton J. Fishman. Of the many contentious accommodation issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), perhaps the most hotly debated is whether reassignment to a vacant position is a reasonable gh the ADA lists “reassignment” as a possible accommodation and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) supports that . : Reassignment Under the ADA: Must an Employer Hire a Minimally Qualified, Disabled Employee over a More Qualified, Non-Disabled Applicant? (Legal Research Guides) (): Amy R. Stein: Books.