October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1250

Does a uniform rule conflict with reasonable accommodation duties?

US Airways seeks to enforce a uniform rule. Barnett argues this rule violates disability accommodation laws.

Official caption
US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Dellinger argued the law requires reasonable accommodations.

    Center stated four key points for the case.

    Rehnquist closed the oral argument session.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

US Airways wants a uniform rule to stand. Barnett wants the rule struck down as discriminatory.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 4, 2001.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

US Airways wants the uniform rule enforced.

Barnett wants the rule declared discriminatory.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

US Airways argues the rule is a neutral business policy.

Barnett argues the rule fails to accommodate disabilities.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Does a uniform rule violate accommodation duties?

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

Employers must balance uniform rules with accommodation duties. This case defines that legal boundary.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON