Disability discrimination plaintiff wins appeal

The Americans with Disabilities Act was amended in 2008 to make it easier for plaintiffs to win their discrimination cases, as Congress decided that the Supreme Court had narrowly interpreted the statute (initially passed in 1990) to increase the burden of proving that your ailment was a "disability," defined as a condition that substantially impairs a major life activity. That legislative amendment helps the plaintiff in this case, as the Second Circuit reverses summary judgment because the plaintiff's tendonitis is a disability under the Act.

The case is Greenbaum v. New York City Transit Authority, a summary order issued on August 15. Plaintiff got tendonitis in his wrist as a result of working at the computer. As I mentioned, a disability is defined as a condition that impairs a major life activity, such as the inability to work a class or broad range of jobs. For plaintiff, that class of jobs includes computer programing or any job that requires extensive computer use. While the district court said plaintiff does not qualify as a disabled individual under the ADA, the Court of Appeals (Lynch, Bianco and Nardini) disagrees, and this case will go to trial.

Plaintiff wins the appeal on this point because his bad wrist prevented him from working the broad class of jobs relating to working the computer. Under the rules, it is not enough to show you cannot work any job in particular; you have to show you cannot work a class of jobs. Plaintiff has enough evidence to prevail on this point. Plaintiff's doctor restricted him to using the computer for 30 minutes at a time, for a total of four hours a day. And, when he has a tendonitis flare-up, plaintiff's pain is magnified and he can't do any mouse-clicking at all. This allows the jury to find that plaintiff is disabled.

To win the case, plaintiff also has to show he was denied a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. He wanted the NYCTA to allow him to use voice-dictation software, and he submitted evidence that some of these programs actually work, including the Dragon Naturally Speaking program, on his laptop at home and the office computer. Based on her experience in other cases, plaintiff's expert said these programs are reasonable accommodations, and they are not expensive. Unless this proposed accommodation is an undue hardship on the agency, plaintiff is entitled to it under the ADA. That is how the statute works. 

Summary judgment was granted against plaintiff on this issue, but the Court of Appeals reinstates the accommodation claim because the evidence on undue hardship is contested on this summary judgment record. While the agency says the voice-dictation software is not compatible with agency computers and there may be issues with tech support, which plaintiff's department is unable to provide, the Court says that plaintiff's expert report rebuts the agency's defense, and plaintiff successfully tested the programs at home, and the agency's lawyer conceded at oral argument that there is no evidence that a system-wide computer breakdown will occur if the agency tests these programs on plaintiff's work computer. This issue simply cannot be resolved on a cold record. We'll have to empanel a jury to decide if plaintiff was denied a reasonable accommodation.