•  
  •  
 

St. Thomas Law Review

First Page

359

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Frequently, in addition to intended effects, new legislation has an unintended impact on existing statutory or judge-made law. Most of the consequences of new laws are anticipated by the legislators, but invariably, some of the effects are unforeseeable. Occasionally, legislators deliberately leave ambiguities and conflicts to the courts for resolution. This is precisely the scenario that was expected by those who have followed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA or "the Act") over the past several years. Specifically, there has been a continuing controversy as to the extent of an employer's obligation to accommodate a disabled employee who works under a collective bargaining agreement that contains a bona fide seniority system. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal's recent decision in Eckles v. Consolidated Rail Corp. upheld the refusal of an employer and union to provide an accommodation that would have abrogated a seniority system. At first blush, the Seventh Circuit's affirmation seems to be dispositive regarding the issue of the interplay between collective bargaining agreements and the right to reasonable accommodation under the ADA. However, after a more substantive analysis, it is plausible that the apparent intent of Congress to de-emphasize the inviolability of seniority systems in the face of the ADA has not been given proper deference by some courts. This article addresses this apparent inadequacy and seeks to determine whether the Seventh Circuit's affirmation of Eckles constitutes the final judicial word, or whether the court's decision will be viewed by other courts as a mistaken interpretation of congressional intent.

Download

Share

COinS