Whether an employer's neutral work rule can trump the ADA's requirement to provide a reasonable accommodation

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. The Panel held that a neutral company work rule requiring “managerial approval” before a job-share position is even created trumps the ADA’s provisions that a job-share accommodation founded on prior practice and company policies is presumptively reasonable absent undue hardship. Does this holding square with the ADA’s provisions or with US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) which recognizes this job sharing proposal as a reasonable accommodation on its face? 2. Should the Court resolve the conflict among the Circuits about whether an employer’s neutral work rule trumps the provisions of the ADA? 3. Did the Panel refuse on summary judgment to view the parties’ evidence in the light most favorable to petitioner when in _ assessing her reasonable accommodation claim it ignored triable fact issues that respondent’s “FlexsWorks Policy” already permitted alternative work arrangements like job sharing; that petitioner had already successfully job-shared with another willing co-employee as a reasonable accommodation; that such opportunities already existed within respondent’s marketing territory; that its Human Resources personnel had already encouraged and approved petitioner’s job share arrangement; and that its changing, inconsistent reasons over time for nonetheless denying petitioner’s proposal was a pretext for unlawful discrimination against this disabled employee?