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?

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