Transit Authority employee loses reasonable-accommodation appeal

This disability discrimination case was tried before a judge in what we call a bench-trial. The judge ruled against plaintiff, determining that this hearing-impaired individual was not qualified to work as a train operator, track worker, or bus operator for the New York City Transit Authority. As such, plaintiff was not eligible for the position. The Court of Appeals affirms and plaintiff loses the case for good.

The case is Frilando v. New York City Transit Authority, a summary order issued on August 19. In this failure-to-accommodate claim, the Court of Appeals (Cabranes, Lynch and Chin) says that plaintiff is not qualified to work for these positions because he cannot understand spoken English. The district court said this is an essential job function for a track worker, and the Court of Appeals will not second-guess that factual finding. (Trial court factual conclusions are almost impossible to overturn on appeal, as the appellate judges defer to the trial judge's assessment of the evidence). 

While plaintiff argues that the evidence shows that some workers may not have worked on tracks and may have performed administrative or other tasks instead, which would not require clear communication of the English language, the Court of Appeals says that evidence is not enough to override the trial court's factual conclusions on what constitutes an essential job function, which in this instance is the ability to communicate in English. "This is not a case where, for example, the record shows that all or even most track workers did not have to communicate in English or hear sounds in order to perform the essential function of their jobs." The case that the Second Circuit cites in support of that proposition is Stone v. City of Mt. Vernon, 118 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 1997).