Williams v. MTA Bus Co.

• Decision Date: 12 August 2022
• Docket Number: Docket No. 20-2985,August Term, 2020
• Citation: 44 F.4th 115
• Parties: Ike WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MTA BUS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, City of New York, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

44 F.4th 115

Ike WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MTA BUS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee,City of New York, Defendant.

Docket No. 20-2985

August Term, 2020

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: May 3, 2021

Decided: August 12, 2022

Andrew Rozynski (David John Hommel, on the reply brief), Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant Ike Williams.

Gabriella Palencia, Executive Agency Counsel, for David Farber, General Counsel, MTA Bus Company, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee MTA Bus Company.

Before: José A. Cabranes, Reena Raggi, Susan L. Carney, Circuit Judges.

Carney, Circuit Judge:

This case concerns the extent of an employer's obligation to provide accommodations such as an American Sign Language interpreter to a disabled individual who wishes to take a preemployment exam but does not show he is otherwise qualified for the position sought. The asserted obligation arises from section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as interpreted in tandem with the employment provisions of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")) and from generally parallel New York State and New York City law. See 29 U.S.C. § 794 ; 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 – 12117 ; N.Y. Exec. L. § 290 et seq. ; N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. First, we consider whether an applicant who does not establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was "otherwise qualified" for the desired employment position can survive a defendant's motion for summary judgment on a failure-to-accommodate discrimination claim. Second, we examine whether Plaintiff-Appellant Ike Williams, who is deaf, made such a showing with regard to the Assistant Stockworker position that he sought at MTA Bus Company ("MTA Bus"). He alleged that MTA Bus discriminated against him on the basis of his disability when it denied him the assistance of an American Sign Language interpreter for its knowledge-based preemployment examination.

The District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Williams must show he was "otherwise qualified" for the Assistant Stockworker position to maintain his Rehabilitation Act claim and that, at summary judgment, Williams had not met this requirement. See Williams v. MTA Bus Co. , No. 17-cv-7687, 2020 WL 1922911, at *7–*9 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2020) (Freeman, M.J. ) (" Williams I "),¹ reconsideration denied , 2020 WL 4904058 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2020) (" Williams II "). On de novo review, we agree.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the orders of the district court.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background²

Plaintiff-Appellant Ike Williams was born hard of hearing and is entirely deaf in his right ear. His primary language is American Sign Language ("ASL"). The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders ("NIDCD") describes ASL as "a complete, natural language that has the same linguistic properties as spoken languages, with grammar that differs from English. ASL is expressed by movements of the hands and face. ... [It] is a language completely separate and distinct from English. It contains all the fundamental features of language, with its own rules for pronunciation, word formation, and word order." American Sign Language , NIDCD, https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/american-sign-language (last updated Oct. 29, 2021). According to the NIDCD, "[ASL] is the primary language of many North Americans who are deaf and hard of hearing and is used by some hearing people as well." Id.

Defendant-Appellee MTA Bus is a public benefit corporation that operates bus routes in New York City. It is a subsidiary of New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority and an affiliate of the New York City Transit Authority ("NYCTA"). Under a 2006 memorandum of understanding ("MOU") between MTA Bus and NYCTA, and a 2011 MOU between NYCTA and New York City through its Department of Citywide Administrative Services ("DCAS"), NYCTA develops and administers examinations to individuals who seek consideration for employment opportunities at MTA Bus that are subject to DCAS's rules and regulations. See App'x at 81–88, 89–103.

In early January 2016, MTA Bus posted its Notice of Examination No. 6302 (the "Notice"), in which it provided a job description, stated applicable job qualifications and details, and advertised an upcoming examination for the position called "Assistant Stockworker." Id. at 58. It set an application deadline of January 26. Id.

According to the Notice, MTA Bus employs Assistant Stockworkers in its storerooms and other facilities, where, "under supervision, [they] receive, check, classify, store and distribute materials and supplies."³ Id. The Notice contained a section labeled "HOW TO QUALIFY." That section advised that, "[b]y the last day of the application period, you must have":

1. Three years of full-time experience as a stock assistant, stock clerk, or stock worker in an industrial, manufacturing, or wholesaling business which stocks railroad, automotive, machine, aircraft or marine maintenance tools, production parts, or plumbing, hardware or sheet metal supplies and tools; or

2. Two years of full-time experience as described in #1 above and a four-year high school diploma or its educational equivalent; or

3. A satisfactory equivalent of education and experience.

Id. at 59.

The Notice further advised, "You are responsible for determining whether you meet the qualification requirements for this examination prior to submitting the application. If you are marked ‘Not Qualified,’ your application fee will not be refunded and you will not receive a score." Id. (emphasis in original). Among other "requirements to be appointed," such as having a valid New York State driver's license, the Notice cautioned, in accordance with DCAS General Examination Regulation E.9.1, that the applicant "must be able to understand and be understood in English."⁴ Id. ; see also Supp. App'x at 5. Wrapping up its description of the process, it directed: "If you believe you meet the requirements in the ‘How to Qualify’ section" of the Notice, then submit an application, an "education and experience test paper," and an application fee, by mail. App'x at 60. Then, about ten days before the examination date, the applicant would receive an "admission letter"—in essence, a ticket to the "competitive multiple-choice test." Id.

As to the substance of the examination, the Notice explained that it "may include questions on[:] general storeroom receiving, storage and distribution procedures in accordance with requisitions and orders; industrial equipment and hand tools; job related arithmetic; efficient and safe storage practices; preparation of reports; and other related areas."⁵ Id. If a candidate achieved a grade of 70 or above and met "the education and experience requirements," his or her name would be placed on an "eligible list," ranked in order of the final exam score, ready to be considered for employment and interviewed as the hiring process proceeded. Id. at 60–61.

Ike Williams, a locksmith by trade and with twenty years’ experience in that role, wanted to apply for a locksmith job at MTA Bus, but because no such position was open, he decided to make a bid for the Assistant Stockworker position, to get a "foot in the door." Supp. App'x at 164. In January 2016, Williams applied to take Examination No. 6302, and in June, he received a letter from MTA Bus assigning him an examination date and location. The letter directed that any requests for "special accommodations ... be submitted in writing with documentation ... by email." App'x at 73. Williams contacted NYCTA to request that NYCTA provide him with "an ASL interpreter to interpret the examination and its instructions." Id. at 12.

After communicating over video phone with Jennifer Garcia, an Associate Staff Analyst at NYCTA, Williams went in person to the NYCTA exam unit to discuss his request, writing notes while there to communicate with Garcia. Garcia later testified that she informed Williams then, and confirmed through later email correspondence, that NYCTA does not make ASL interpreters available for the exams, but that in light of his auditory impairment NYCTA would give Williams a written version of the instructions about how to take the exam, which other exam-takers would be given verbally.⁶

On July 1, 2016, Williams took the examination. He received a score of 37.50. To pass, he needed at least 70. Williams alleges that he "would have been able to pass the examination with the reasonable accommodation of an ASL interpreter to interpret the examination and its instructions."⁷ App'x at 12.

II. Procedural Background

In October 2017, Williams sued MTA Bus, charging primarily that by failing to provide an ASL interpreter for the exam, it unlawfully discriminated against him based on his disability, thereby violating section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). Among other relief, he sought a declaratory judgment that MTA Bus's "policies, procedures, and practices have subjected Plaintiff to unlawful discrimination"; an order enjoining MTA Bus "from implementing or enforcing any policy, procedure, or practice that discriminates against deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals" and requiring MTA Bus "to provide in-person ASL interpreters to [Williams] for any examinations in written English"; and damages. App'x at 16–17.

A. The summary judgment decision

In 2020, following the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court entered judgment for MTA Bus, concluding primarily that because the record showed that Williams was not "otherwise qualified" for the Assistant Stockworker position, he could not establish that MTA Bus discriminated against him on the basis of disability in violation of section 504. Williams I , 2020 WL 1922911, at *9. The court likewise concluded that, although the allocation of the burden of proof on this issue differed for Williams's claim under the NYCHRL, the result...