Whether an employer's selection of the equipment used to perform a job precludes a court from considering whether modification of such equipment would still allow a union employee to perform the essential functions of his job under the ADA?

QUESTION PRESENTED This is a crucial matter involving the rights of disabled, union employees to receive reasonable accommodation that has not yet been, but should be, decided by this Court: Is an employer’s decision that it cannot modify the equipment used by a union employee dispositive proof that the employer cannot offer a reasonable accommodation for the employee? The Petitioner produced evidence that a smaller van was available for deliveries after he sought the same as a reasonable accommodation. The Respondent did not offer any specific records to rebut Petitioner’s position that the van he sought was available. The Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the Respondent, and held it would not second guess the Respondent’s business decision that it could not provide another van to Petitioner as a reasonable accommodation. (Pet. App. 18a, 17a). The novel question presented is: Whether an employer’s selection of the equipment used to perform a job precludes a court from considering whether modification of such equipment would still allow aunion employee to perform the essential functions of his job under the ADA? u PARTIES BELOW Petitioner is Jay Hannah. Respondent is United Parcel Service, Inc. RELATED CASES ¢ Hannah v. UPS, No. 2:20-ev-120, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Judgment entered June 2, 2021. ¢ Hannah v. UPS, No. 21-1647, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Judgment entered July 10, 2023.