Second Circuit rules on ‘qualified individual’ under Rehabilitation Act

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, whose decisions control in New York, recently ruled on whether an individual was qualified to receive the benefit of a reasonable accommodation during the pre-application testing process. Read on to understand how this case affects your own hiring procedures.

Background

Ike Williams, who is deaf and a locksmith by trade, sued MTA Bus Company under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973—which incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standard—alleging discrimination based on his hearing disability when he was denied the assistance of an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter for the MTA's knowledge-based pre-employment examination for an assistant stock worker position.

The district court granted summary judgment (dismissal without a trial) in favor of the MTA. Williams appealed to the Second Circuit.

Qualified individual

On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal. It based its decision on the statutory text, legislative history, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance, all of which supported the conclusion that Williams was required to show he was a “qualified individual” to prevail on his failure-to-accommodate discrimination claim under the ADA. Put to the test, he failed to show he could perform the essential functions of the stock worker position, with or without a reasonable accommodation, because his previous work experience as a locksmith didn’t meet the position’s minimum “prior experience” qualifications.