44 F.4th 115
2d Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff Ike Williams is deaf (primary language ASL); he applied to take MTA Bus/NYCTA Examination No. 6302 for the Assistant Stockworker position.
- The Notice required specific stock-worker experience (or equivalent) and stated applicants must be able to understand and be understood in English; applicants were responsible for self‑determining eligibility before application.
- Williams requested an in-person ASL interpreter; NYCTA/MTA Bus declined and offered written instructions instead.
- Williams sat for the test on July 1, 2016, scored 37.50 (70 required to pass), and alleged he would have passed with an ASL interpreter.
- He sued under Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), NYSHRL, and NYCHRL for failure to provide reasonable accommodation; the district court granted summary judgment to MTA Bus, concluding Williams was not “otherwise qualified.”
- On de novo review, the Second Circuit affirmed: plaintiff must be an "otherwise qualified" individual for the employment position sought, and Williams failed to raise a triable issue that he met the Assistant Stockworker qualifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an applicant must be a “qualified individual” to bring a failure‑to‑accommodate claim under the ADA/§504 (including testing provision §12112(b)(7)) | Williams: §12112(b)(7) omits "qualified individual," so testing accommodations must be available regardless of whether applicant is otherwise qualified for the job. | MTA Bus: ADA’s definition of "qualified individual" (§12111(8)) and §12112(a) general rule apply to all §12112(b) subparts; the requirement governs testing claims too. | Court: "qualified individual" requirement applies to all §12112(b) subparts, including (b)(7). |
| Whether the relevant "position" for the "otherwise qualified" inquiry can be the test‑taker/applicant role (i.e., test‑taking ability) rather than the employment position sought | Williams: the "position at issue" is the applicant/test‑taker; anyone eligible to take the open test is "otherwise qualified" for that role. | MTA Bus: "position" means the employment position the individual desires; test‑taking is not an "employment position." | Court: "test‑taker" is not the "employment position" here; the inquiry focuses on whether applicant could perform essential functions of the job sought. |
| Whether Williams raised a genuine dispute that he was "otherwise qualified" for Assistant Stockworker | Williams: his resume and limited evidence created triable issues about whether his experience satisfied the Notice’s "satisfactory equivalent" requirement. | MTA Bus: Williams’s resume shows locksmith and limited volunteer housekeeping work—not the required industrial/warehouse stock experience; NYCTA personnel concluded he did not meet minimum qualifications. | Court: No reasonable jury could find Williams met the listed experience/education or an appropriate equivalent; summary judgment for MTA Bus affirmed. |
| Whether NYCHRL provides broader protection allowing an accommodation claim even if plaintiff is not qualified for the job | Williams: NYCHRL’s "enjoy the right or rights in question" language means applicants have a right to testing accommodations regardless of qualification. | MTA Bus: NYCHRL still requires that, with accommodation, the person could satisfy essential requisites of the job; employer can raise lack of qualification as an affirmative defense. | Court: NYCHRL does not salvage the claim—no genuine dispute that Williams could satisfy job requisites with accommodations; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009) (elements and burden for failure‑to‑accommodate claim)
- Frilando v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 463 F. Supp. 3d 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (district court decision addressing test accommodations for applicants)
- Frilando v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 513 F. Supp. 3d 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (bench trial decision distinguishing §12112(b)(5)(A) and (b)(7))
- Rosebrough v. Buckeye Valley High Sch., 690 F.3d 427 (6th Cir. 2012) (trainee/employee classification discussed; distinguished here)
- Jacobsen v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 N.Y.3d 824 (N.Y. 2014) (NYCHRL interactive‑process and accommodation standards)