US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett
United States Supreme Court
535 U.S. 391 (2002)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
In 1990, Robert Barnett (plaintiff) sustained a back injury while working as a cargo handler for US Airways, Inc. (US Airways) (defendant). Barnett used seniority rights to transfer to a less strenuous mailroom position. US Airways had a seniority system under which various job positions periodically opened up to seniority-based employee bidding. In 1992, Barnett learned other employees with higher seniority planned to bid for his mailroom position. Barnett asked US Airways to accommodate his physical disability by making an exception to its seniority system and allowing him to keep the mailroom job. US Airways decided not to grant the request. Barnett lost his mailroom job. Barnett sued US Airways under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), alleging unlawful disability discrimination. Barnett argued the requested accommodation—permanent assignment to the mailroom—was reasonable under the ADA. US Airways argued that the accommodation was unreasonable because it required US Airways to violate its well-established seniority system. The district court granted summary judgment to US Airways, but the court of appeals reversed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.