Skip to main content

EEOC v. Humiston-Keeling Inc

7th CircuitSeptember 15, 2000No. 99-3281
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Per Curiam
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Humiston-Keeling, holding that the ADA does not require employers to reassign disabled employees to vacant positions when more qualified applicants are available, absent evidence that the disability itself created the performance disparity.

What This Ruling Means

**EEOC v. Humiston-Keeling Inc: Court Rules on Job Reassignment Rights** This case involved a dispute over whether an employer must reassign a disabled worker to a different position when that worker couldn't perform their current job due to their disability. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Humiston-Keeling Inc., arguing the company failed to properly accommodate a disabled employee by not moving them to an available position. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the employer. The court decided that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), companies are not required to reassign disabled workers to vacant positions when other, more qualified candidates are available for those jobs. The key factor was that the court found no evidence that the employee's disability itself caused their poor performance – meaning their work issues weren't directly related to their disability. **What this means for workers:** This ruling limits reassignment rights for disabled employees. While employers must still provide reasonable accommodations, they don't have to give disabled workers preference over better-qualified candidates when transferring to new positions. Workers seeking reassignment accommodations need to demonstrate that their disability directly impacts their ability to perform their current role, and that they're qualified for the position they're seeking.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Humiston-Keeling, Inc.
7th CircuitSep 2000
Defendant Win
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Humiston-Keeling, Inc.
N.D. Ill.Jul 1999
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.