Williams v. MTA Bus Co.

English Requirement Did Not Violate Rehabilitation Act; Qualification for Job Not Shown

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER In this action, which is before this Court on consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c), plaintiff Ike Williams (“Plaintiff”) alleges that defendant Metropolitan Transit Authority Bus Company (“Defendant” or “MTA Bus Company”) unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794 (the “Rehab Act”); the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L. §290, et seq. (the “NYSHRL”); and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §8-101, et seq. (the “NYCHRL”). (See Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, dated Dec. 18, 2017 (Dkt. 10) (“Am. Compl.”) 2.) Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief, as well as compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. (See generally id.) Currently before the Court are Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 48) and Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 44). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is granted, and Plaintiff’s cross-motion is denied. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background¹ 1. The Parties Plaintiff was born hard of hearing and is fully deaf in his right ear; as a result, he primarily communicates in American Sign Language (“ASL”). (Def. 56.1 Stmt. 1; Pl. 56.1 Stmt.

1-2.) Plaintiff attended a high school with both hearing and deaf students, but was provided with ASL interpreters in the classroom. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. 6; see also Def. 56.1 Stmt. 3.) Plaintiff also communicated with classmates through lip-reading and written notes (see Def. 56.1 Stmt. 4), although how effective these forms of communication were for him is disputed by the parties. After high school, Plaintiff attended City Technical College, for locksmith training, where he was also assisted by ASL interpreters, as well as note takers. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. 7; Def. 56.1 Stmt. 5.) After graduation, Plaintiff was self-employed as a locksmith for 20 years, a job in which he communicated with customers by text, emails, and written notes. (Def. 56.1 Stmt.

Williams v. MTA Bus Co.

English Requirement Did Not Violate Rehabilitation Act; Qualification for Job Not Shown

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal