Williams v. MTA Bus Company

Background

Ike Williams alleged that MTA Bus Company discriminated against him because of his disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Williams was born hard of hearing, is fully deaf in his right ear, and primarily communicates in American Sign Language.

Williams applied for an Assistant Stockworker position after learning that an MTA locksmith position was unavailable. The position required specified stockworker experience, an equivalent combination of education and experience, and passage of a written examination. The examination tested knowledge about receiving, storing, and distributing supplies and tools. Before taking the exam, Williams requested an American Sign Language interpreter. MTA Bus Company told him that it did not provide interpreters for exams but would provide oral instructions in writing. Williams took the exam without an interpreter, failed, and received a score of 37.50, while a passing score was 70 or higher.

The Parties’ Motions

MTA Bus Company moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no important factual dispute requires a trial and that one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Williams filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

MTA Bus Company argued that Williams was not qualified for the Assistant Stockworker position and that written exam instructions were a reasonable accommodation. Williams argued that his locksmith experience was equivalent to the required experience, that he was entitled to an interpreter for the exam, that the English-language requirement improperly screened out deaf applicants, and that the company’s exam policy had a disproportionate effect on deaf and hard-of-hearing people.

Rulings

Judge Debra Freeman granted MTA Bus Company’s motion for summary judgment and denied Williams’s cross-motion.

The court first rejected Williams’s argument that requiring Assistant Stockworkers to understand and be understood in English was automatically unlawful. The court found that the requirement was mandated by Department of Citywide Administrative Services regulations and that Williams had not provided evidence showing that it improperly screened out deaf applicants.

The court then ruled that Williams had not shown a genuine factual dispute about whether he was qualified for the Assistant Stockworker position. The parties did not dispute that Williams had no prior full-time experience as a stock assistant, stock clerk, or stockworker. Williams argued that his locksmith experience could be equivalent, but the court found that he offered no evidence showing that his prior work was equivalent to the stockwork experience described in the job requirements. Because being qualified was necessary to establish his disability-discrimination claims, the court granted summary judgment to MTA Bus Company on his claims under the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The court also ruled that Williams’s disparate-impact theory was not pleaded in his amended complaint and could not be raised for the first time at summary judgment. In addition, the court stated that, even if the claim were allowed, Williams had not provided evidence of a significantly adverse or disproportionate effect on deaf or hard-of-hearing people. The court granted summary judgment dismissing that claim and denied any request to amend the pleading to add it. The Clerk was directed to close the case.