Skip to main content

An Employer Is Not Always Required to Grant a Disabled Employee Their Preferred Accommodation


Noll v. International Business Machines Corp. - Second Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Alfred Noll ("Noll") was a deaf software engineer who sued his employer, IBM, for failure to accommodate him under the Americans with Disabilities Act "ADA".  Noll alleged that IBM refused to offer him real-time translation services for intranet files as an accommodation for his disability.  Instead, IBM provided Noll with on site and remote sign language interpreters who could translate the files for him.  However, Noll apparently did not like using the interpreters because looking back and forth between the video and the interpreter was a "confusing and tiring" process.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of IBM on the grounds that IBM reasonably accommodated Noll by providing a sign language interpreter.

Holding:  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted upfront that under the ADA and New York law, an employer is required to afford a reasonable accommodation for an employee's known disability unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer.  In any case, the reasonableness of an employer's accommodation is a "fact specific" question.  As well, a reasonable accommodation has been held to be one that "enables an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position...or to enjoy the equal benefits and privileges of employment."  

In this case, the Court held that the accommodation offered by IBM was reasonable.  As the Court held, although the preference of an individual with a disability should be given primary consideration, the employer that provides the accommodation has the ultimate discretion to choose between effective accommodations and may choose a less expensive accommodation that is easier to provide.  Under the Rehabilitation Act, an employer is note required to provide every accommodation the disabled employee requests, so long as the accommodation provided is reasonable.  

In this instance, the sign language interpreter was held to be a reasonable accommodation for Noll.  The interpreters and transcripts were available to Noll whenever he wanted and were available both on site and remotely. 

Judgment:  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of IBM and held that an employer is not required to grant a disabled employee his preferred accommodation when another reasonable accommodation is shown to exist and the employer provides that to the employee. 

The Takeaway:  I think the Court got it right here.  Namely, every single accommodation that a disabled employee requests does not have to be provided by the employer.  In a case such as this, IBM was able to accommodate Noll's disability and provided him with interpreters and transcripts to help him do his job.  The fact that Noll preferred another accommodation instead was not enough for the Court to find a violation of the ADA or New York law.  Employers should still be weary:  Just because you decide that one accommodation is better than one requested by an employee does not automatically mean the employee's requested accommodation should not be allowed.  Tread carefully!

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Jacobs

Date:  May 21, 2015

Opinion:  cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13-4096/13-4096-2015-05-21.pdf?ts=1432218605

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more