20-2985 Williams v. MTA Bus Co. 1 2 In the 3 United States Court of Appeals 4 For the Second Circuit 5 ______________ 6 7 August Term, 2020 8 9 (Argued: May 3, 2021 Decided: August 12, 2022) 10 11 Docket No. 20-2985 12 ______________ 13 14 IKE WILLIAMS, 15 16 Plaintiff-Appellant, 17 18 –v.– 19 20 MTA BUS COMPANY, 21 22 Defendant-Appellee, 23 24 CITY OF NEW YORK, 25 26 Defendant. 27 ______________ 28 29 B e f o r e: 30 31 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. 32 33 ______________ 34 1 This case concerns the extent of an employer’s obligation to provide 2 accommodations to a job applicant with a disability under section 504 of the 3 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (incorporating the standard set forth in Title I of the 4 Americans with Disabilities Act) and under generally parallel state and city law. See 29 5 U.S.C. § 794; 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b); N.Y. Exec. L. § 290 et seq.; N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 6 et seq. First, we consider whether an applicant who cannot establish a genuine issue of 7 material fact as to whether he is “otherwise qualified” for the desired employment 8 position can survive summary judgment on a failure-to-accommodate claim arising 9 from the employer’s preemployment testing protocols. Second, we examine whether 10 Plaintiff-Appellant here, Ike Williams, who is deaf, made such a showing as to the 11 Assistant Stockworker position that he sought, entitling him to pursue a discrimination 12 claim after he was denied the assistance of an American Sign Language interpreter for a 13 preemployment examination. The District Court for the Southern District of New York 14 (Freeman, Magistrate Judge) ruled that such a showing was required, and that as a 15 matter of law Williams had not made such a showing. On de novo review, we conclude 16 that the district court correctly decided both issues. 17 AFFIRMED. 18 ______________ 19 20 ANDREW ROZYNSKI (David John Hommel, on the reply brief), 21 Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff- 22 Appellant Ike Williams. 23 24 GABRIELLA PALENCIA, Executive Agency Counsel, for David 25 Farber, General Counsel, MTA Bus Company, New 26 York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee MTA Bus Company. ______________ CARNEY, Circuit Judge: 27 This case concerns the extent of an employer’s obligation to provide 28 accommodations such as an American Sign Language interpreter to a disabled 29 individual who wishes to take a preemployment exam but does not show he is 30 otherwise qualified for the position sought. The asserted obligation arises from section 31 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as interpreted in tandem with the employment 32 provisions of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)) and from generally 2 1 parallel New York State and New York City law. See 29 U.S.C. § 794; 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111– 2 12117; N.Y. Exec. L. § 290 et seq.; N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals