Nicholas Keith v. County of Oakland
703 F.3d 918
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Keith, a deaf individual, applied for a lifeguard position at Oakland County's wave pool after completing relevant training with an ASL interpreter.
- He received a conditional job offer contingent on a pre-employment physical; the medical examiner stated Keith could not be a lifeguard due to deafness, though suggesting possible accommodation.
- Oakland County solicited input from Ellis & Associates and prepared accommodations (interpreter for staff meetings/training, visual EAP signals, note cards, updated zone scanning, etc.).
- Oakland County ultimately revoked the offer, citing concerns about Keith’s ability to perform essential lifeguard functions even with accommodations.
- Keith sued under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act alleging failure to hire due to disability and failure to provide reasonable accommodation and engage in the interactive process.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Oakland County; the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the county conducted an individualized inquiry | Keith argues the county failed to assess his abilities individually. | Oakland County asserts it conducted an individualized inquiry through training observations and accommodations. | Genuine issues remain; remand to assess adequacy of inquiry. |
| Whether Keith is 'otherwise qualified' as a lifeguard with or without accommodation | Keith can perform essential functions with accommodations; experts support this. | Debate over whether deafness prevents essential functions; accommodations questioned. | Issue of fact exists; Keith may be otherwise qualified with reasonable accommodations. |
| Whether the proposed accommodations were reasonable | Accommodations (interpreter for staff meetings/training, visual EAP, note cards) are objectively reasonable. | Accommodations could shift duties and impose undue hardship or fail to restore essential functions. | Remand to determine reasonableness; factual dispute exists. |
| Whether the interactive process was properly engaged | County failed to meaningfully engage with Keith to identify accommodations. | County claims it engaged via third-party experts and proposed plans. | District court erred in dismissing interactive-process violation; remand to address merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holiday v. City of Chattanooga, 206 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2000) (requires individualized inquiry and evaluation of disability against job functions)
- Kiphart v. Saturn Corp., 251 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2001) (prima facie case; burden shifts to employer to show undue hardship)
- Kleiber v. Honda of Am. Mfg., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007) (interactive process and reasonable accommodation standards)
- Bratten v. SSI Servs., Inc., 185 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 1999) (reasonableness of accommodation depends on impact on employer; marginal vs essential functions)
- Schultz v. YMCA, 139 F.3d 286 (1st Cir. 1998) (question of whether hearing is essential; plausibility of deference to expert opinions)
- Steward v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 533 F. Supp. 2d 717 (E.D. Mich. 2008) (accommodation not to create elimination of essential function; distinguish from this case)
- Walton v. Hammons, 192 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 1999) (statutory interpretation on 'otherwise qualified' and essential functions)
- Knapp v. City of Columbus, 192 F. App’x 323 (6th Cir. 2006) (regulatory interpretation of essential functions and accommodation standards)