Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
OPINION BELOW
The United States District Court of the Southern District of New York granted the
motion for summary judgment filed by Appellees, Planet Earth News, Inc. The order is
included as Appendix A.
ISSUE PRESENTED
qualified individual with a disability to a vacant position when the plain language of the
statute mandates this reassignment, the legislative history confirms that reassignment is
10
employers duty to reassign a qualified individual with a disability who can no longer
11
12
STATUTES INVOLVED
13
The statutes involved are the findings and purposes section of the Americans with
14
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 (2009), the definitions section of the ADA id.
15
at 12111, and the discrimination section of the ADA, id. at 12112. A copy of the
16
finding and purposes section appears in Appendix B, a copy of the relevant portions of
17
the definitions section appears in Appendix C, and a copy of the relevant portions of the
18
19
20
JURISDICTION
Congress has granted that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all
21
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the Unites States. 28
22
U.S.C. 1331 (1980). This case arises under the ADA, a federal statute, meaning that the
23
24
25
appeals from final orders of the district courts. Because the district courts order granting
26
summary judgment below was final, this court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
27
28
I. Procedural History
29
After being passed over for the position of Director of Social Media at Planet
30
Earth News, Inc. (PEN), Will Burgundy resigned from PEN (Pls Aff. 11). On January
31
2, 2013, the EEOC issued Mr. Burgundy a right-to-sue letter (Compl. 5). Thereafter,
32
Mr. Burgundy filed a complaint on March 13, 2013, requesting relief as a result of PENs
33
34
Disabilities Act (Compl. 4). PEN answered the complaint on April 1, 2013. (Answer).
35
On October 15, 2013, PEN moved for summary judgment (Defs Mot.), and Mr.
36
Burgundy responded to this motion on October 31, 2013 (Pl.s Resp.). On December 20,
37
2013, the district court granted the motion for summary judgment (Dist. Ct. Order), to
38
which Mr. Burgundy filed a timely notice of appeal on January 6, 2014, seeking a
39
reversal of the district courts order granting the motion for summary judgment (Not. of
40
Appeal).
41
II. Facts
42
When PEN established its news network, Mr. Burgundy was hired as its very first
43
Lead News Anchor (Compl. 8). Mr. Burgundy held this esteemed position for over a
44
decade, until a catastrophic, ice skating accident (Pl. Aff. 5). As a result of this tragic
45
46
aphonia, meaning that Mr. Burgundy will never speak again (id.). Mr. Burgundy is
47
qualified individual with a disability as defined by 42 U.S.C. 12111(8) (2008) (Dist. Ct.
48
Order, Dec. 20, 2013). Due to his aphonia, Mr. Burgundy took a leave of absence while
49
he contemplated his future (Pl. Aff. 6). Mr. Burgundy then met with the station
50
manager at PEN, Fred Harken (id. 7), who is responsible for accommodating employees
51
with disabilities in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Harken
52
Dep. 1:7-9). Harken and Mr. Burgundy discussed reassignment to a position that would
53
not require Mr. Burgundy having to talk (Pl. Aff. 7). The Director of Social Media
54
position was vacant and would not require any speaking (id.). The requirements for the
55
position were two years of news station experience and the ability to build a rapport with
56
viewers (Pl. Aff. 7). Having over twenty years of news station experienceincluding
57
more than ten years as the Lead News Anchor at PEN (id. 2) along with loyal
58
followers all around the world and a social media presence (including a Twitter handle,
59
Facebook profile, and blog) Mr. Burgundy was qualified for the position. (id. at 7).
60
Harken interviewed Mr. Burgundy for the position of Director of Social Media
61
(Harken Aff. 9). Despite Mr. Burgundys many years of anchor experience and loyal
62
followers (Pl. Aff. 7), Harken hired Veronica Corningstone over Burgundy for the
63
position of Director of Social Media (Harken Dep. 2:15-16). After being a valuable
64
employee and the face of PEN for over a decade, Burgundy was forced to seek other
65
66
67
68
disability to a vacant position when this is the only reasonable accommodation that will
69
allow the employer to retain an employee. The text of the ADA defines not making
70
71
72
73
and placed many safeguards into the statute to prevent undue burdens on employers.
74
Finally the agency that has been charged with administering the ADA, the EEOC, has
75
76
disability to a vacant position when reassignment is the only thing preventing the
77
78
STANDARD OF REVIEW
79
This Court reviews the district courts grant of summary judgment de novo.
80
Lynch v. City of N.Y.C., 737 F.3d 150, 156 (2d Cir. 2013).
81
ARGUMENT
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
other things, not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental
89
90
91
92
93
12111(9)(B).
94
Several circuits have held that this provision imposes a duty on an employer to
95
reassign a qualified individual with a disability to a vacant position. See e.g. Smith v.
96
Midland Brake Inc., 180 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 1999); EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc., 693
97
F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2012); Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Still,
98
others have held the ADA does not impose a duty on an employer to fulfill a disabled
99
employees reassignment request See e.g. Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 486 F.3d 480
100
(8th Cir. 2007); Daugherty v. City of El Paso, 56 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 1995). The second
101
circuit has not explicitly answered whether the ADA mandates reassignment to a vacant
102
position for a qualified individual with a disability. (Dist. Ct. Order at 2). A plain
103
language interpretation of the ADA, the legislative history of the ADA, and the United
104
105
will decisively show that the ADA requires mandatory reassignment of a qualified
106
107
108
109
A.
110
When the Court is interpreting the ADA, it should look, first, at the language of
111
the ADA itself. Castellano v. City of N.Y., 142 F.3d 58, 66 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing
112
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997)). The core word in reassignment
113
is assign. Aka, 156 F.3d at 1302 (citing 42 U.S.C. 12111(9)(B)). Assign is defined
114
as to appoint (one) to a post or duty id. (citing Webster's Third New International
115
Dictionary). An employee who is merely allowed to compete for a vacant position, on par
116
with all others, has not been reassigned, by any meaningful sense of the word. id at
117
1304. See also Smith, 180 F.3d at 1171 (finding that the ADA means more than mere
118
119
Furthermore, the ADA acknowledges that disabled employees are not always
120
treated like all other employees. US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 397 (2002).
121
122
opportunity goal. id. And the fact that this preference violates a disability-neutral rule
123
does not place reassignment outside of the scope of the ADA. id. To the contrary,
124
125
126
PEN will attempt to persuade the Court that reassignment is optional, and that
127
128
This position misinterprets the ADA. The act lists out a number of reasonable
129
130
131
132
accommodation than the others listed, which an employer must not only consider but
133
must also implement. Smith, 180 F.3d at 1167. Thus, the text of the ADA does not
134
135
136
137
138
basis of disability. U.S.C. 12112(a). If the Court adopts PENs reading of the statute
139
and only requires that the disabled employee is considered for reassignment,
140
12111(9)(B) and 12112(a) of the ADA would be redundant and add nothing to the
141
general ban on discriminatory treatment. Aka, 156 F.3d at 1304. Therefore if an employer
142
may only consider a disabled employees application for reassignment, the employer
143
can simply go though the pointless process of considering the application, and reject it
144
every time. Smith, 180 F.3d at 1167. The ADAs promise would be hallow and
145
redundant. id. The Court should be skeptical in reading redundancy into a statute. Aka,
146
156 F.3d at 1305 (citing Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 140 (1994)) (Judges
147
should be hesitant to read statutory terms as non-essential elements). Therefore, the court
148
should interpret the text of the ADA as imposing a statutory duty on an employer to
149
150
151
B.
152
Courts have decided on differing textual readings of the ADA; specifically, if the
153
154
who is no longer able to perform the job task of her current position to a vacant position.
155
See Aka, 156 F.3d at 1305 (finding that the forcing a disabled employee to compete with
156
others for reassignment violates the ADA) But see Huber, 486 F.3d at 484 (finding that
157
an employer can hire an outside applicant over a disabled employee). To resolve this
158
discrepancy the Court may take counsel in legislative history and other similar tools of
159
160
when enacting the ADA. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 647 (1998)
161
The legislative history of the ADA is in agreement with the 10th circuit, the D.C.
162
circuit, and Mr. Burgundy that an employer has a duty to reassign a qualified individual
163
with a disability to a vacant position. Congresss goal in enacting the ADA was to assure
164
165
166
167
168
169
to a disabilityis no longer able to perform the essential functions of the employees job,
170
Congress understood that reassignment would prevent the employer from losing a
171
valuable employee. H.R. Rep. No. 101-485 (II), at 63 (1990), reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N.
172
303, 345). This does not impose an undue burden on the employer, because the employer
173
only needs to consider this accommodation after other accommodation efforts have
174
175
Congress further recognized that disabled employees are not always treated like
176
all other employees. id. at 1304. To curtail the ADAs burden that this duty may impose
177
on an employer, Congress included numerous safeguards in the statute. Smith, 180 F.3d.
178
at 1170-1176 (citing, H.R. Rep. No. 101-485). First, the employer should consider
179
reasonable accommodations within the employees existing job that will keep the
180
employee at the existing job. Smith, 180 F.3d at 1174. It is when these efforts fail that the
181
employer should reassign the employee to a new position. id. A new position that is
182
vacant, preexisting, and does not require a promotion. id. at 1175-76. Furthermore, the
183
employee must be qualified for the position, and the employer has no duty to reassign the
184
employee if reassignment would impose an undue hardship on the employer. id. at 1178.
185
Burgundys position is bolstered by the houses statement that the employer is not
186
required to bump another employee out a position in order to create one for the
187
disabled employee. H.R. REP. No. 101-485. If Congress thought that qualified
188
individuals with a disability would be treated like all other employees, it would not have
189
needed to include this bumping language in the house report. Smith, 180 F.3d at 1169.
190
The numerous safeguards and the bumping language, arguably, makes it clear that
191
congress did not intend that qualified individuals with a disability are to be treated
192
exactly like all other employees. Congress intended to treat qualified individuals with a
193
194
195
C.
196
The EEOC is the agency that has been charged with administering Title I of the
197
ADA. 42. U.S.C. 12116. The EEOC has also issued regulations on the scope of
198
199
200
position. id. But, these regulations to not impose an undo burden on an employer. The
201
employee should only be reassigned to a vacant position that she is qualified for, and
202
only when the employee cannot be accommodated at the existing position. id. In addition
203
to these regulations, the EEOC has issued interpretive guidance on the issue. See
204
Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities
205
206
hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 7 Emp. Discrim. Coord. Forms,
207
Pleadings and Practice Aids 4:11.The guidance provides this question and answer
208
209
210
211
212
213
Does reassignment mean that the employee is permitted to compete for a vacant
position?
No. Reassignment means that the employee gets the vacant position if s/he is
qualified for it. Otherwise, reassignment would be of little value and would not be
implemented as Congress intended. id.
214
The EEOC is interpreting its own regulations, and it has been suggested that the
215
EEOCs interpretations may receive controlling weight. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd.
216
v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 171 (2007) (holding that an agencys interpretation of its own
217
regulations are controlling unless clearly inconsistent with the actual regulations). Even if
218
the court does not find this reasoning compelling, the EEOCs regulations do compose of
219
a mass of experience and informed judgment that courts may properly resort to for
220
guidance. Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65 (1986). The EEOC, as
221
the agency directed by Congress to implement the ADA, is aligned with Burgundy and
222
223
no longer perform the essential functions of their current job and are then denied
224
reassignment by their employer, and the Court can properly refer to the EEOC for any
225
guidance needed.
226
227
228
CONCLUSION
Mr. Burgundy respectfully requests that this Court reverses the district courts
grant of summary judgment.
10