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