Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
228 F.3d 1105 (2000)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
Robert Barnett (plaintiff) suffered from a serious back injury while working for U.S. Airways, Inc. (U.S. Air) (defendant) as a cargo agent. Barnett requested that U.S. Air provide any of three possible accommodations for his disability: First, Barnett asked that U.S. Air purchase a low-technology mechanical-lifting device to assist Barnett in loading and unloading cargo. Second, Barnett requested modifying the cargo position to require only desk work. Third, Barnett requested reassignment to the mail room. U.S. Air never spoke to Barnett about his request. Five months later, U.S. Air rejected Barnett’s proposed reasonable accommodations in a letter. Instead, U.S. Air offered to give Barnett a forklift to lift individual suitcases. Additionally, U.S. Air told Barnett that Barnett could apply for any other job at U.S. Air for which he was qualified. Eventually, Barnett sued U.S. Air in federal district court, arguing in relevant part that U.S. Air had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to reasonably accommodate Barnett or even to attempt to engage in an interactive process to discuss possible accommodations. The district court granted U.S. Air’s summary-judgment motion and dismissed Barnett’s claims. Barnett appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fletcher, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.