In Rourk v. Oakwood Hospital Corp, 458 Mich 25, 33-34; 580 NW2d 397 (1998), the Supreme Court explained: We find it would be illogical to conclude that plaintiff is handicapped or is entitled to a job transfer under the former HCRA because she is qualified to perform another position despite her physical restrictions. To disassociate employee qualifications from the jobs for which they were hired or for which they are being considered would effectively bind employers permanently to their employees. Even when an employee is unable to perform the duties for which originally hired or currently being considered, the employer would have to place the employee in another position. It is not for the courts to impose such a burden on employers in the absence of express, unequivocal language from the Legislature. Further, there is no actual or implied support in the statute for the imposition of such a burden. Examining the use of the language "to perform the duties of a particular job or position" against other provisions using the same language clarifies that the Legislature intended the inquiry to focus on the job for which plaintiff was originally hired. Rourk at 34-35.