Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc.: Writing Affirmative Action into the Americans with Disabilities Act?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit made a decision saying that under the ADA, an employee with a disability can get a new job even if there’s a better qualified person for it. This decision is seen as a win for employees with disabilities, but it raises concerns about how employees with disabilities are treated compared to those without. The court said that an employer can pick the better qualified person when hiring, but if there’s a vacant job, they have to give it to the disabled employee if they’re qualified. Harry, who has a disability, is an average employee at Widget Company. When a more qualified person, Sally, becomes available, Widget fires Harry and hires Sally. If Harry sues Widget for discrimination under the ADA, Widget can argue that they fired Harry because Sally was more qualified, not because of his disability. If Harry can’t prove that Widget’s reason for firing him is false, then Widget can win the case. However, there’s a problem when it comes to reassigning employees under the ADA, according to the Tenth Circuit’s analysis. This means Widget’s actions might not be as simple to defend as it seems. Harry used to be disabled, but he got better. Then he got hurt again at work and couldn’t do his job anymore. There’s a job opening for an assistant comptroller at Widget. Bill, who used to work at Gizmo, wants to apply for the job. He has been an assistant comptroller at Gizmo for 15 years. Carmen wants to hire Bill for a job, but her company’s lawyer says she has to hire Harry instead because of a legal ruling. After three months, Carmen finds out that Bill is doing really well at his new job, while Harry is just okay at his old job. She wants to fire Harry and hire Bill instead, but the lawyer says she can’t because of the legal ruling. The ruling doesn’t seem to make sense, because it doesn’t let Carmen make decisions based on who is best for the job. The Tenth Circuit interpreted the ADA to require automatic reassignment for a disabled employee, regardless of qualifications, which goes against the intent of the law. This interpretation is not supported by the legislative history of the ADA and could be seen as giving preferential treatment to disabled employees. The court’s reasoning for this interpretation was to ensure that the requirement to consider reassignment as a form of accommodation is meaningful, but this goes against the employer’s obligation to make decisions without regard to an individual’s disability. The court’s concern about automatically reassigning disabled employees doesn’t mean they should always get reassignment. Instead, a disabled employee should have to show they deserve it, like by proving there’s no other accommodation that would work, and a vacant position they qualify for. If they do this, then the employer has to show a good reason for denying the reassignment. If they do, the employee has to prove that reason was just an excuse and not true. This is the same process used in other civil rights cases. In simple terms, the “shifting burdens” model in employment cases helps both employees and employers. The court decision in Midland Brake has caused concern that it could give special treatment to employees with disabilities. However, the 11th Circuit court has not faced this issue yet, and it is likely they would not support preferential treatment for disabled employees. In a recent court case, the 11th Circuit said that an employer doesn’t have to create a part-time job for a disabled employee. The court said that the ADA doesn’t give special treatment to disabled workers. But the Tenth Circuit disagreed and said that the employer should create a new job for the disabled employee. They didn’t pay attention to the broader statements made by the 11th Circuit. The Tenth Circuit’s interpretation of an employer’s duty to reassign an employee with disabilities is too broad. This doesn’t mean that people with disabilities shouldn’t have accommodations, but it shouldn’t automatically mean they get reassigned over other qualified candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court will have to resolve a legal dilemma created by the Midland Brake decision. The Court will interpret Congress’ mandate to prevent discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and the remedies outlined in the ADA. It’s likely that the Court will rely on established legal standards to make a decision. Other circuit courts have also disapproved similar preferential treatment. The Court’s decision will have a significant impact on the rights of individuals with disabilities in the workplace. Edward G. Guedes is a lawyer at a firm in Miami. He went to Amherst College and Harvard Law School. He specializes in employment and labor law, focusing on the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. This article is written on behalf of the Labor and Employment Law Section.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/smith-v-midland-brake-inc-writing-affirmative-action-into-the-americans-with-disabilities-act/