McElwee v. County of Orange
700 F.3d 635
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- McElwee, in his mid-30s with PDD-NOS, IQ 79, long-time Valley View volunteer, performed janitorial duties and resident transport without issue for years.
- Valley View, a federally funded entity, dismissed McElwee from the volunteer program in November 2009 after multiple complaints of inappropriate conduct toward female staff and others.
- Valley View conducted an investigation interviewing five women and a security guard who reported harassing or inappropriate behavior by McElwee; he made disturbing statements during questioning.
- McElwee asserted his dismissal violated the ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act by denying a reasonable accommodation for his disability.
- District court granted summary judgment, holding McElwee was not substantially limited in interacting with others and thus not disabled under the statutes.
- The court did not resolve whether McElwee was otherwise qualified or whether accommodations could be reasonable; the judgment was affirmed on appeal on different grounds, focusing on lack of discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is McElwee a qualified individual with a disability? | McElwee is disabled and qualified to volunteer with accommodation. | His misconduct renders him unqualified to participate in Valley View's program. | Even assuming disability, County wins on qualification analysis due to conduct barriers. |
| Did Valley View discriminate by denying a reasonable accommodation? | Valley View should have accommodated him by proactive interaction and therapy coordination. | Proposed accommodations are unreasonable and past misconduct excuses future participation. | No, accommodations proposed were unreasonable; discrimination not shown. |
| Whether the district court erred by not considering the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) impact on disability status and life activities. | ADAAA broadens 'disability' and 'substantially limits' scope; McElwee could be disabled. | Even if disabled, still no reasonable accommodation; ADAAA does not change result here. | We assume arguendo possible disability but still affirm summary judgment for lack of retaliation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2003) (defines 'qualified individual' and 'reasonable accommodations' framework)
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009) (interactive process and timing of accommodation burden shifting)
- Castellano v. City of New York, 946 F. Supp. 249 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (eligibility for benefits can be affected by available accommodations)
- Lovejoy-Wilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel, Inc., 263 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2001) (comprehensive scope of reasonable accommodations in Title II/III contexts)
- Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., 386 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2004) (broader interpretation of disability-related life activities under ADA)