Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca2-13-04096/USCOURTS-ca2-13-04096-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

1 13‐4096

2 Noll v. International Business Machines Corp.

3

4 SACK, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

5 In my view, the record before the district court with respect to the

6 attempted accommodation of Alfred J. Nollʹs disability by his employer,

7 International Business Machines Corp. (ʺIBMʺ), did not permit the court to

8 conclude as a matter of law, at the summary judgment stage, that IBM offered

9 Noll a reasonable accommodation for his disability as required by the Americans

10 with Disabilities Act (ʺADAʺ), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the New York State

11 Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq.  I therefore respectfully dissent.

12 A plaintiff suing under the ADA for disability discrimination bears

13 the burden of establishing a prima facie case.  In so‐called

14 reasonable‐accommodation cases, such as this one, the plaintiffʹs

15 burden requires a showing that (1) plaintiff is a person with a

16 disability under the meaning of the ADA; (2) an employer covered

17 by the statute had notice of his disability; (3) with reasonable

18 accommodation, plaintiff could perform the essential functions of

19 the job at issue; and (4) the employer has refused to make such

20 accommodations.

21 Graves v. Finch Pruyn & Co., 457 F.3d 181, 183‐84 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasis added)

22 (internal quotation marks omitted).  It is undisputed that Noll has carried his

23 burden of showing the first three elements.  The only remaining issue, then, is

Case 13-4096, Document 94, 05/21/2015, 1515110, Page1 of 7
No. 13‐4096‐cv

Noll v. International Business Machines Corp.

2

1 whether Nollʹs employer, IBM, has refused to make a reasonable

2 accommodation.   

3 Noll asserts, inter alia, that he requires an accommodation for his deafness

4 that would enable him to understand the audio portion of videos made available

5 to IBM employees on the companyʹs intranet.  To that end, he sought to have the

6 company supply the videos to him with the audio portion in writing contained

7 in on‐screen captions.  The modification that IBM offered to provide to him,

however, was to make available to him American Sign Language (ʺASLʺ)1 8

9 interpreters who would, upon his request, interpret the intranet videos

10 simultaneously with his viewing of them.

                                                            

1 American Sign Language . . . is a complete, complex language that employs

signs made by moving the hands combined with facial expressions and postures

of the body.  It is the primary language of many North Americans who are deaf

and is one of several communication options used by people who are deaf or

hard‐of‐hearing.

. . . .

ASL is a language completely separate and distinct from English.  It contains all

the fundamental features of language—it has its own rules for pronunciation,

word order, and complex grammar.  While every language has ways of signaling

different functions, such as asking a question rather than making a statement,

languages differ in how this is done.  For example, English speakers ask a

question by raising the pitch of their voice; ASL users ask a question by raising

their eyebrows, widening their eyes, and tilting their bodies forward.

Natʹl Inst. on Deafness and Other Commcʹn Disorders [NIDCD], U.S. Depʹt of Health &

Human Servs., NIDCD Fact Sheet:  American Sign Language, available at

http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/pages/asl.aspx (last visited May 14, 2015).

Case 13-4096, Document 94, 05/21/2015, 1515110, Page2 of 7
No. 13‐4096‐cv

Noll v. International Business Machines Corp.

3

1 IBM was not necessarily legally required to supply Noll with the

2 accommodation he requested.  The company, as his employer, was entitled to

3 choose among reasonable accommodations that were available.  See Fink v. New

4 York City Depʹt of Pers., 53 F.3d 565, 567 (2d Cir. 1995); Interpretive Guidance on

5 Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 29 C.F.R. § 1630 app. (2014).  That

6 choice, however, is limited to modifications that are ʺeffective.ʺ  See U.S. Airways,

7 Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 400 (2002) (ʺAn ineffective ʹmodificationʹ or

8 ʹadjustmentʹ will not accommodate a disabled individualʹs limitations.ʺ (emphasis

9 in original)).

10 The question, then, is whether IBM established, in support of its motion for

11 summary judgment, that the ASL modification it stood ready to supply to Noll

12 would have been effective.  It seems to me that, to the contrary, Noll has offered

13 evidence ʺfrom which a reasonable inference could be drawnʺ that it would have

14 been ineffective.  Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 37 (2d Cir.

15 1994).  He explained, by declaration in opposition to the motion for summary

16 judgment, that ʺhaving a sign language interpreter interpret an intranet video is

17 not effective for [him].  The same problem entailed [sic] in reading a transcript

18 while watching a video applies with a sign language interpreter.  [He] cannot

Case 13-4096, Document 94, 05/21/2015, 1515110, Page3 of 7
No. 13‐4096‐cv

Noll v. International Business Machines Corp.

4

1 simultaneously watch the interpreter and the video.  It is too confusing and

2 tiring, switching back and forth between the interpreter and the screen.ʺ  Decl. of

3 Alfred J. Noll in Oppʹn to Def.ʹs Mot. for Summ. J. ¶ 28 (J.A.  253) (citation

4 omitted).  His proffered expert evidence also indicates that deaf viewers better

5 comprehend video content with on‐screen captions than with modifications that

disrupt viewersʹ peripheral vision.2 6

7 The majority opinion seems to conclude, although it is not altogether clear

8 to me why, that the ASL interpreters whose services were provided to Noll were

9 plainly reasonable accommodations in the circumstances of this case.  We have

10 said, however, that the ʺnecessarily fact‐specificʺ question whether an employerʹs

11 proffered modification is effective ʺmust be made on a case‐by‐case basis.ʺ  

12 Wernick v. Fed. Reserve Bank of New York, 91 F.3d 379, 385 (2d Cir. 1996).  That

13 ʺfact‐specificʺ question here is whether under all the facts and circumstances of

14 this case, provision of ASL interpreters for the audio of intranet videos to this

15 plaintiff was a reasonable accommodation.

                                                            

2 The majority dismisses this evidence on the ground that it ʺdoes not address ASL

interpretation.ʺ  Maj. Op. at 13 n.4.  The Pelz reportʹs conclusions focus on transcripts

rather than ASL interpretation, but the report also explains in more general terms that

visual comprehension decreases when an individual viewing a video cannot use

ʺperipheral vision to monitor [] video content,ʺ as one can when viewing captions.  J.A.

262.   

Case 13-4096, Document 94, 05/21/2015, 1515110, Page4 of 7
No. 13‐4096‐cv

Noll v. International Business Machines Corp.

5

1 The majority concludes that Nollʹs claimed discomfort does not create a

2 material factual dispute, because ʺit can be expected that many accommodations

3 of deafness . . . will tax visual attention to some degree.ʺ  Maj. Op. at 13.  But the

4 fact that all modifications are imperfect does not mean that any modification is

5 effective.  An accommodation need not achieve ʺthe perfect elimination of all

6 disadvantage that may flow from the disability.ʺ  Fink, 53 F.3d at 567 (emphasis

7 added).  But it must achieve some elimination of that disadvantage; specifically,

8 enough so that an employee with a disability can ʺenjoy equal benefits and

9 privileges of employment as are enjoyed by [] other similarly situated employees

10 without disabilities.ʺ  29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) (2012).  That question is fact‐

11 intensive.  See Wernick, 91 F.3d at 385.

12 Perhaps the majority is insisting that this case is the exception to the fact‐

13 bound rule because ASL interpretation is usually an effective accommodation for

14 deaf or hard‐of‐hearing employees, and because Noll agrees that ASL

15 interpretation is effective for him in some other settings.  See Maj. Op. at 14‐15.  

16 But the reason our decisions require ʺa fact‐specific, case‐by‐case inquiry that

17 considers, among other factors, the effectiveness of the modification in light of

18 the nature of the disability in question,ʺ Staron v. McDonaldʹs Corp., 51 F.3d 353,

Case 13-4096, Document 94, 05/21/2015, 1515110, Page5 of 7
No. 13‐4096‐cv

Noll v. International Business Machines Corp.

6

1 356 (2d Cir. 1995), is that what works for some or even most individuals with

2 similar disabilities may not work for all, and what works in one context for one

3 person with a disability may not work for that same person in a different context.  

4 Thus an employer attempting to identify an appropriate accommodation for a

5 particular employee should ʺidentify the precise limitations imposed by the

6 [employeeʹs] disability and explore potential accommodations that would

7 overcome those limitations.ʺ  29 C.F.R. § 1630 app.

8   ASL interpretation is effective for Noll at in‐person meetings.  See Maj.

9 Op. at 14.  But that fact is relevant only insofar as we can infer that attending a

10 meeting entails the same visual and cognitive processes as watching a video.  

11 IBM has offered no evidence of which I am aware to this effect, and we are, of

12 course, prohibited from drawing inferences in IBMʹs favor at this stage.  See

13 Chambers, 43 F.3d at 36.  It seems to me that, in light of Nollʹs declaration,

14 whether the accommodation IBM offered is reasonable and effective is a question

15 of fact for a trier of fact at a trial – not for the district court on motion for

16 summary judgment, or for us on appeal.

17 It is, of course, possible that a trier of fact, after hearing all of the relevant

18 evidence in this case, would conclude that Nollʹs disabilities were indeed

Case 13-4096, Document 94, 05/21/2015, 1515110, Page6 of 7
No. 13‐4096‐cv

Noll v. International Business Machines Corp.

7

1 reasonably accommodated by IBM, a company which, the record suggests, has

2 generally been impressively sensitive and responsive to the needs of its

3 employees with disabilities, including those who are deaf or hard‐of‐hearing.  I

4 do not think, however, that the record before the district court contained

5 evidence sufficient to permit the court to short‐circuit that process by granting

6 the defendant judgment without the input of a trier of fact based upon evidence

7 presented to it at trial.

Case 13-4096, Document 94, 05/21/2015, 1515110, Page7 of 7