InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

US Airways, Inc. v. Robert Barnett

In a case about reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Court held that a requested accommodation such as a transfer can be unreasonable if it would violate the employer's seniority system.· AI-written

535 U.S. 391 · No. 00-1250 · 2001 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided Apr 29, 2002 · argued Dec 4, 2001

Civil rights · Handicapped, rights of: under Rehabilitation, Americans with Disabilities Act, and related statutes

Majority opinion: Stephen Breyer

The voteMajorityDissent

7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent

2 dissents (7–2)

Vacated and remanded. US Airways, Inc. won.

What this ruling means

Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.

US Airways, Inc. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, (2002), was a case in the United States Supreme Court that dealt with issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and reasonable accommodations in the workplace. The Court held that even requests for accommodation that might seem reasonable on their face, such as a transfer to a different position, can be rendered unreasonable if they would require a violation of the company's seniority system.

While the Court ruled that, in general, a violation of a seniority system renders an otherwise reasonable accommodation unreasonable, a plaintiff can present evidence that, despite the seniority system, the accommodation is reasonable in the specific case at hand, for example, the plaintiff could offer evidence that the seniority system is so often disregarded that another exception wouldn't make a difference. The court also held that the defendant need not provide proof that this particular application of the seniority system should prevail, and that, once the defendant showed that the accommodation violated the seniority system, it fell to the plaintiff (Barnett) to show it was nevertheless reasonable.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2001 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianStevensGinsburgSouterBreyerO'ConnorKennedyRehnquistScaliaThomas

Majority(7)

Dissent(2)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
US Airways, Inc.Airline
Respondent
Robert BarnettEmployee, or job applicant
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Americans with Disabilities Act
Kind of law
Federal Statute
Decided by
Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Apr 29, 2002DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: vacated and remanded. US Airways, Inc. won.
  2. Dec 4, 2001ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: reversed, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

40 other argued cases since 1946 on handicapped, rights of: under Rehabilitation, Americans with Disabilities Act, and related statutes, newest first.

  1. Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida145 S. Ct. 2058Jun 20, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 2058Civil rights7–27–2 band

  2. A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279145 S. Ct. 1647Jun 12, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 1647Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  3. Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools598 U.S. 142Mar 21, 2023 · 598 U.S. 142Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  4. Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C.142 S. Ct. 1562Apr 28, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1562Civil rights6–36–3 band
  5. Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. Re-1137 S. Ct. 988Mar 22, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 988Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  6. Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools137 S. Ct. 743Feb 22, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 743Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  7. City and County of San Francisco, California v. Sheehan575 U.S. 600May 18, 2015 · 575 U.S. 600Civil rights8–0Unanimous band

  8. Forest Grove School District v. T. A.557 U.S. 230Jun 22, 2009 · 557 U.S. 230Civil rights6–36–3 band

  9. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York v. Tom F., on Behalf of Gilbert F., a Minor Child552 U.S. 1Oct 10, 2007 · 552 U.S. 1Civil rights4–45–4 band

  10. Schaffer, a Minor, by His Parents and Next Friends, Schaffer, et vir, et al. v. Weast, Superintendent, Montgomery County Public Schools, et al.546 U.S. 49Nov 14, 2005 · 546 U.S. 49Civil rights6–27–2 band

  11. Douglas Spector, et al. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.545 U.S. 119Jun 6, 2005 · 545 U.S. 119Civil rights6–36–3 band

  12. Tennessee v. George Lane et al.541 U.S. 509May 17, 2004 · 541 U.S. 509Civil rights5–45–4 band
  13. Raytheon Company v. Joel Hernandez540 U.S. 44Dec 2, 2003 · 540 U.S. 44Civil rights7–0Unanimous band
  14. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security v. Pauline Thomas540 U.S. 20Nov 12, 2003 · 540 U.S. 20Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  15. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Mario Echazabal536 U.S. 73Jun 10, 2002 · 536 U.S. 73Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  16. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security v. Cleveland B. Walton535 U.S. 212Mar 27, 2002 · 535 U.S. 212Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  17. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Ella Williams534 U.S. 184Jan 8, 2002 · 534 U.S. 184Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  18. PGA Tour, Inc. v. Casey Martin532 U.S. 661May 29, 2001 · 532 U.S. 661Civil rights7–27–2 band

  19. Tommy Olmstead, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Human Resources, et al. v. L. C., by Jonathan Zimring, Guardian Ad Litem and Next Friend, et al.527 U.S. 581Jun 22, 1999 · 527 U.S. 581Civil rights6–36–3 band

  20. Albertson's, Inc. v. Hallie Kirkingburg527 U.S. 555Jun 22, 1999 · 527 U.S. 555Civil rights7–27–2 band
  21. Vaughn L. Murphy v. United Parcel Service527 U.S. 516Jun 22, 1999 · 527 U.S. 516Civil rights7–27–2 band
  22. Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton v. United Air Lines, Inc.527 U.S. 471Jun 22, 1999 · 527 U.S. 471Civil rights7–27–2 band

  23. Carolyn C. Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corporation et al.526 U.S. 795May 24, 1999 · 526 U.S. 795Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  24. Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., a Minor by His Mother and Next Friend, Charlene F.526 U.S. 66Mar 3, 1999 · 526 U.S. 66Civil rights7–27–2 band

  25. Randon Bragdon v. Sidney Abbott, et al.524 U.S. 624Jun 25, 1998 · 524 U.S. 624Civil rights5–45–4 band

  26. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al. v. Ronald R. Yeskey524 U.S. 206Jun 15, 1998 · 524 U.S. 206Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  27. City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., et al.514 U.S. 725May 15, 1995 · 514 U.S. 725Civil rights6–36–3 band
  28. Florence County School District Four, et al. v. Shannon Carter, a Minor by and Through Her Father, and Next Friend, Emory D. Carter510 U.S. 7Nov 9, 1993 · 510 U.S. 7Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  29. Dellmuth, Acting Secretary of Education of Pennsylvania v. Muth et al.491 U.S. 223Jun 15, 1989 · 491 U.S. 223Civil rights5–45–4 band
  30. Pittston Coal Group, et al. v. Sebben, James, et al.488 U.S. 105Dec 6, 1988 · 488 U.S. 105Civil rights5–45–4 band
  31. Honig, California Superintendent of Public Instruction v. Doe et al.484 U.S. 305Jan 20, 1988 · 484 U.S. 305Civil rights6–27–2 band
  32. School Board of Nassau County, Florida, et al. v. Arline480 U.S. 273Mar 3, 1987 · 480 U.S. 273Civil rights7–27–2 band
  33. United States Department of Transportation et al. v. Paralyzed Veterans of America et al.477 U.S. 597Jun 27, 1986 · 477 U.S. 597Civil rights6–36–3 band
  34. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. American Hospital Association et al.476 U.S. 610Jun 9, 1986 · 476 U.S. 610Civil rights5–36–3 band
  35. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. City of New York et al.476 U.S. 467Jun 2, 1986 · 476 U.S. 467Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  36. School Committee of the Town of Burlington, Massachusetts, et al. v. Department of Education of Massachusetts et al.471 U.S. 359Apr 29, 1985 · 471 U.S. 359Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  37. Alexander, Governor of Tennessee, et al. v. Choate et al.469 U.S. 287Jan 9, 1985 · 469 U.S. 287Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  38. Irving Independent School District v. Tatro et ux., Individually and As Next Friends of Tatro, a Minor468 U.S. 883Jul 5, 1984 · 468 U.S. 883Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  39. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County, et al. v. Rowley, by Her Parents, Rowley et ux.458 U.S. 176Jun 28, 1982 · 458 U.S. 176Civil rights6–36–3 band
  40. Pennhurst State School and Hospital et al. v. Halderman et al.451 U.S. 1Apr 20, 1981 · 451 U.S. 1Civil rights6–36–3 band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.