discretion indicates that doing so would be “feasible” and “w[ould] not interfere with patient care or the orderly opera- tíon of the hospital.” This built-in exception to the seniority system is quite broad in scope, and appears to be quite similar to the ADA in determining when reassignment may be required. Thus, although there is a conflict between the agreement and the “reasonable accommodation” Aka seeks, the conflict is relatively minor, and therefore it appears to present little difficulty for Aka’s claim that the accommodation is “reasonable”; by the same token, the conflict appears to give Washington Hospital little purchase for any affirmative defense that the reassignment would impose an “undue hardship.” Cf. Buckingham v. United States, 998 F.2d 735, 741-42 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). To put it in terms of the infringement on the
holding terms of collective bargaining agreement only a factor in weighing reasonableness of accommodation holding that oral agreement made in connection with reinstatement should be treated as part of collective bargaining agreement holding that a job transfer provided as a reasonable accommodation under the rehabilitation act did not conflict with a collective bargaining agreement when the agreement included a provision authorizing transfers and requiring a seniority preference in transfers ejxcept in the most unusual of circumstances holding transfer to another job that would violate seniority rights under collective bargaining agreement unreasonable holding that a complaint for interference with a collective bargaining agreement against a nonparty to that agreement is not actionable under  301a of the lmra