Williams v. MTA Bus Co.

Summary

**Williams v. MTA Bus Co., 2d Cir. 2022** – A deaf job applicant sued under §504 of the Rehabilitation Act (incorporating ADA Title I standards), NYSHRL, and NYCHRL after MTA Bus denied his request for an ASL interpreter during a preemployment exam for an Assistant Stockworker position. The Second Circuit held that a plaintiff must show he is an "otherwise qualified individual" for the desired employment position—not merely a "test-taker"—to survive summary judgment on a failure-to-accommodate claim. Because Williams presented no genuine dispute that he met the position's stated experience/education requirements, summary judgment for the employer was affirmed; the NYCHRL claim also failed as the employer established the affirmative defense that Williams could not satisfy the essential requisites of the job. The court further held that the "qualified individual" requirement applies to all subsections of 42 U.S.C. §12112(b), including preemployment testing provisions, and that failure to engage in the interactive process does not create an independent cause of action.

Holdings

1. Yes, the plain language of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act requires that a plaintiff be a 'qualified individual' who can perform the essential functions of the employment position held or desired. This requirement applies to all subparts of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b), including the testing provision in subsection (b)(7).
2. The relevant 'employment position' is the job sought (Assistant Stockworker), not the position of 'test-taker.' An applicant must be qualified for the desired job, not merely eligible to take the exam.
3. No, Williams failed to present evidence that he met the minimum qualifications (experience as a stock worker in an industrial setting or equivalent). His locksmith and volunteer housekeeping experience did not satisfy the requirements.
4. No, under the NYCHRL, the plaintiff's qualification for the job is an affirmative defense, but here there is no genuine dispute that Williams was not qualified. The NYCHRL does not require employers to provide testing accommodations to individuals who are not qualified for the position.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a job applicant must be a 'qualified individual' for the employment position sought to prevail on a failure-to-accommodate claim under the Rehabilitation Act and parallel state/city law.
2. Whether the 'otherwise qualified' inquiry focuses on the applicant's ability to perform the essential functions of the desired job or merely the test-taking process.
3. Whether Williams raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was otherwise qualified for the Assistant Stockworker position.
4. Whether the NYCHRL provides broader protections that would entitle Williams to accommodations regardless of his qualifications.

Disposition

affirmed