Yasmin Reyazuddin v. Montgomery County, Maryland
789 F. 3d 407, 31 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1265, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10032 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's undue hardship defense to a failure-to-accommodate claim cannot be established as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage when there are genuine factual disputes, such as conflicting expert cost estimates, and the analysis must consider the accommodation's cost relative to the employer's overall financial resources, not just a specific line-item budget.
Facts:
- Yasmin Reyazuddin, who is blind, worked for Montgomery County's Department of Health and Human Services as an Information and Referral Aide, using screen reader software to perform her duties.
- The County decided to consolidate its call centers into a new facility, MC311, and purchased Siebel software to run the operation.
- The County configured the software to run in 'high-interactivity mode,' which was incompatible with screen reader software, despite the availability of an accessible 'standard-interactivity mode' that could run concurrently without impacting overall productivity.
- In October 2009, the County formally told Reyazuddin and her four sighted coworkers that their unit was transferring to MC311.
- The County transferred the four sighted aides to MC311 but did not transfer Reyazuddin, citing the software's inaccessibility.
- Instead of being transferred, Reyazuddin was assigned piecemeal 'make-work' tasks that did not constitute full-time employment, while maintaining her prior salary and benefits.
- The County ultimately informed Reyazuddin she would not be transferred to MC311 because making the software accessible would be too expensive.
- In 2012, Reyazuddin applied for a vacant position at MC311 but was not among the top-scoring applicants and was not hired.
Procedural Posture:
- Yasmin Reyazuddin sued her employer, Montgomery County, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
- Reyazuddin alleged failure to accommodate and disparate treatment under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and discrimination under Title II of the ADA.
- Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Montgomery County on all claims.
- Reyazuddin, as appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's undue hardship defense, based on conflicting cost estimates and speculative operational impacts, entitle it to summary judgment on a failure-to-accommodate claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act when the employer has a multi-billion dollar budget?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Diaz
No. An employer's defense of undue hardship is not established as a matter of law when genuine issues of material fact exist. The court reversed the summary judgment for the County on the Section 504 claims, finding that a jury must resolve several key factual disputes. First, there is a genuine issue as to whether Reyazuddin could perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation, given conflicting evidence and the County's own manager's admission that she had the requisite skills. Second, a factual dispute exists as to whether the County's provision of 'make-work' tasks constituted a reasonable accommodation, as an accommodation must provide a 'meaningful equal employment opportunity.' Finally, the court held that the undue hardship defense presented a classic 'battle of the experts' regarding cost, which is inappropriate to resolve at summary judgment. The district court improperly weighed evidence, overemphasized cost while ignoring other statutory factors like the County's $3.73 billion budget and MC311's $10 million in savings, and incorrectly relied on the County's 'meager' internal budget for accommodations. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for the County on the Title II ADA claim, holding that Title I is the exclusive remedy for public employment discrimination claims under the ADA, joining the majority of circuit courts on this issue.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the undue hardship defense is a high bar for employers to meet, especially at the summary judgment stage. The ruling cautions courts against resolving 'battles of the experts' or allowing an employer's internal budgeting decisions to dictate the outcome of a multi-factor statutory test. By holding that an employer's overall financial resources are paramount, the court limits the ability of large government or corporate entities to claim that reasonable costs are an undue burden. Furthermore, the court definitively aligned the Fourth Circuit with the majority of other circuits by holding that Title I, not Title II, of the ADA is the sole vehicle for public employment discrimination claims, providing clarity on this previously unsettled issue in the circuit.
