Noll v. International Business Machines Corp.
787 F.3d 89
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Alfred J. Noll, a deaf software engineer at IBM since 1984, sought on-screen captions for all intranet videos and transcripts for audio files; IBM instead provided on-demand ASL interpreters and transcripts on request.
- IBM’s intranet stored tens of thousands of media files; only a very small fraction were captioned. Transcripts were typically provided within days but sometimes delayed or had broken links.
- Noll regularly used and helped coordinate ASL interpreters at IBM, finding them effective for live meetings but saying they were tiring/confusing when used with videos because of back-and-forth visual attention.
- Noll sued under the ADA and New York State Human Rights Law alleging IBM failed to reasonably accommodate his disability and failed to engage in the interactive process; district court granted summary judgment for IBM.
- The Second Circuit majority affirmed, holding IBM’s provision of ASL interpreters (and transcripts) was a plainly reasonable accommodation and that failure to engage in an interactive process is not actionable when reasonable accommodation was provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IBM provided a reasonable accommodation for Noll’s deafness | Noll: ASL interpreters were ineffective for intranet videos because switching gaze between interpreter and screen made comprehension too tiring/confusing; he needed captions/transcripts at posting. | IBM: Provided effective accommodations (on-demand qualified ASL interpreters, transcripts, limited captioning); employer may choose among effective accommodations; ASL interpreters are a common reasonable accommodation. | Court: ASL interpreters (plus transcripts) were plainly reasonable and effective; Noll’s preference for captions does not create a triable issue. |
| Whether delays/broken transcript links rendered accommodations unreasonable | Noll: Occasional delays and broken links made transcripts unreliable and insufficient. | IBM: Transcripts were generally provided promptly and interpreters were available on demand; no evidence of appreciable access delay. | Court: Timeliness issues did not overcome undisputed availability of ASL interpretation; no material factual dispute shown. |
| Whether employer must provide employee’s preferred accommodation (captions) | Noll: IBM should be required to caption/post transcripts proactively so deaf employees have equal access. | IBM: Employer need not provide the employee’s preferred accommodation if an effective alternative is provided. | Court: Employer can choose among effective accommodations; not required to provide the employee’s most preferred option. |
| Whether failure to engage in an interactive process is an independent ADA violation | Noll: Failure to engage (or to do so properly) gives rise to liability regardless of ultimate accommodation. | IBM: Interactive process aims to identify an effective accommodation; if a reasonable accommodation was provided, failure to explore alternatives is not actionable. | Court: No independent liability for failing to engage when employer has provided a plainly reasonable accommodation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758 (2d Cir. 2002) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (definition of genuine issue for trial)
- Wernick v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y., 91 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 1996) (plain reasonableness doctrine for employer accommodations)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (accommodation must be effective)
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., Inc., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009) (failure-to-engage claim requires evidence that accommodation was possible)
- Fink v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Personnel, 53 F.3d 565 (2d Cir. 1995) (employer need not provide every requested accommodation)
- Rehling v. City of Chicago, 207 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 2000) (interactive process not actionable when reasonable accommodation provided)
- U.S. E.E.O.C. v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, 620 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2010) (limitations of ASL in conveying technical content)