In presenting their case to the U.S. Supreme Court the company articulated that the usurpation of the authority of a seniority system is not justifiable under the ADA provisions, and as such Barnett was not wrongfully denied the opportunity to maintain his position.
Does the Supreme Court Decide that a Seniority System "Trumps" and Accommodation Request?
The Court in arriving at its decision presents a reasoned and thoughtful explanation of seniority systems relative to employer/employee hiring. In doing so the Court articulates a considerable advantage and benefits for employees under a company seniority system, "by creating, and fulfilling, employee expectations of fair, uniform treatment. These benefits include 'job security and an opportunity for steady and predictable advancement based on objective standards'" (Reed,...
Shedd, P. Morehead, J. & Pagnattaro, M. 2008). This tactic allows the Court to posit that a seniority system in fact "trumps" an accommodation request under the ADA however, in doing so employees are in the totality of cases better served, if in a case by case basis such as Barnett the employee may not.
The Court's reading of the legislation places a superiority of the seniority system over the ADA because they could "find nothing in the statute that suggests Congress intended to undermine the seniority system" (Reed, O. Shedd, P. Morehead, J. & Pagnattaro, M. 2008). In particular the Court reasons that if employers were forced to prove on a case by case basis that seniority systems alone were not enough to override ADA legislation, then the "accommodation decision might well undermine the employees' expectations of
