323 F. Supp. 3d 319
D. Conn.2018Background
- Plaintiff James Cadoret, a deaf ASL-user employed by Sikorsky for over 30 years, seeks an ASL interpreter to access meetings, trainings, and supervisory communications.
- Cadoret concedes he can perform the essential functions of his job but says lack of interpreter access denied him equal benefits and privileges (e.g., daily "muster" meetings, department meetings, trainings).
- Sikorsky sometimes provided written materials, one-on-one follow-ups, and later (2017) Video Remote Interpreting (VRI); plaintiff contends these measures were inconsistent or ineffective in the noisy, interactive workplace.
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge alleging repeated denied requests for an interpreter and brought ADA and Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate claims; he withdrew a separate retaliation claim.
- Sikorsky moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiff does not need an interpreter to perform his job, failed to exhaust an "equal benefits" theory, a full-time interpreter would be unreasonable, and VRI cured the problem.
- The Court denied summary judgment, finding triable issues on need for an interpreter to obtain equal benefits, exhaustion was adequate, and VRI (provided after suit) did not defeat damages or injunctive claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff needs an ASL interpreter to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment | Cadoret: cannot reliably access interactive, noisy group meetings or trainings via lipreading/written materials; requires an interpreter to participate | Sikorsky: Cadoret can perform essential job functions without an interpreter; other accommodations (one‑on‑one followups, written materials) suffice | Court: Triable issue exists whether an interpreter is needed for equal access despite ability to perform essential job functions |
| Whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies for an "equal benefits" theory | Cadoret: EEOC charge alleging repeated denials of interpreters put EEOC on notice of broader denial-of-benefits claim | Sikorsky: EEOC decision did not mention "equal benefits," so plaintiff failed to exhaust that theory | Court: Charge was broad enough to be reasonably related; exhaustion adequate |
| Whether request for (effectively) a full‑time interpreter is unreasonable as a matter of law | Cadoret: interpreter is a recognized reasonable accommodation; full‑time request not per se unreasonable here | Sikorsky: hiring a full‑time interpreter is equivalent to hiring another employee and is unreasonable | Court: No per se rule making full‑time interpreter unreasonable; facts could show reasonableness — triable issue remains |
| Whether VRI (provided in 2017) satisfies accommodation and defeats claims for relief | Cadoret: VRI was provided long after suit and is inconsistently used; does not eliminate past damages or future relief need | Sikorsky: VRI provides on‑demand interpreting and is reasonable | Court: VRI post‑dates the alleged violations and cannot bar damages for earlier period or necessarily moot injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir.) (employer must reasonably accommodate known limitations)
- Noll v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 787 F.3d 89 (2d Cir.) (interpreters are a common form of reasonable accommodation; reasonableness is fact‑specific)
- U.S. EEOC v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, 620 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir.) (denial of interpreters for department meetings can implicate denial of benefits and privileges)
- Searls v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 158 F. Supp. 3d 427 (D. Md.) (full‑time interpreter may be reasonable accommodation for deaf employee)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S.) (defendant's voluntary cessation does not necessarily moot claims for damages or injunctive relief)