A reasonable jury could conclude that an employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it failed to hire a deaf lifeguard, said the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, overturning a lower court’s decision.
The case, Keith v. County of Oakland (2013 WL 115647, No. 11–2276 (6th Cir. Jan. 10, 2013)) involved Nicholas Keith, an individual who has been deaf since birth.
He applied for a lifeguard position with Oakland County, Mich. and told them that he would need an interpreter for meetings and classroom instruction. He successfully completed the training program and the county offered him a job, on the condition that he pass the medical exam it requires for all lifeguards.
However, when the doctor said that Keith would have to be “constantly accommodated” and the county’s risk management consultant expressed concern about his abilities, the county revoked his job offer.
Keith filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing that with a reasonable accommodation, he was qualified for the job. He alleged that Oakland County violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when it failed to conduct an individualized inquiry into his abilities and failed to engage in the interactive process of looking for an accommodation.
The court however, granted summary judgment for the employer. It determined that the county had conducted an individualized inquiry into his abilities and properly determined that Keith was not “otherwise qualified” for the job because hiring an additional lifeguard as a full-time interpreter was not a reasonable accommodation. Additionally, any failure by Oakland County to engage in the interactive process did not establish a violation of ADA, the court said, because there was no reasonable accommodation available anyway.
Keith appealed and the 6th Circuit overturned the lower court’s decision, finding that the county had not conducted an individualized inquiry as to whether he was qualified. The court said it was “incongruent” with ADA’s objectives for an employer to make an individualized inquiry only to defer to the opinions and advice of those who have not.
The appeals court also disagreed with the lower court that there exists no reasonable accommodation that would allow Keith to communicate effectively. ADA provides that accommodations may include “the provision of qualified readers or interpreters.” The inclusion of interpreters in the statute suggests that the provision of an interpreter will often be reasonable, the court said — particularly when one is needed only occasionally, as Keith requested.
The district court also erred on the interactive process question, the 6th Circuit found. Its conclusion that any failure by Oakland County to engage in the interactive process did not violate ADA because there was no accommodation available is “erroneous because it rests on an incorrect premise,” the appeals court said. “Because we conclude that Keith has met his burden to show that a reasonable accommodation was possible, at least sufficient to survive summary judgment, we ask the district court to address the merits of this argument on remand.”
For the full story, visit http://hr.complianceexpert.com.