Keith v. County of Oakland
Keith v. County of Oakland
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 595 (6th Cir.)
Plaintiff Keith was born deaf. He wears an external sound transmitter, and can detect noises through his cochlear implant, such as alarms, whistles, and people calling for him. Although he is unable to speak verbally, he communicates using American Sign Language (ALS). Keith successfully completed two lifeguard training courses with the aid of a sign language interpreter, and was certified as a lifeguard. He applied at Oakland County, and was offered a position as a lifeguard at the wave pool, subject to a physical examination. The doctor who examined him, upon reading his medical file, said, “He’s deaf. He can’t be a lifeguard.” before making any other inquiry or examination. Water safety experts were consulted who also said that Keith was not qualified, and the job offer was withdrawn. Keith filed an action with the EOC, alleging a violation of the ADA.
What are the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?
Does it appear that the type of “individualized inquiry” required by the ADA occurred in this case? Why or why not?
Was the plaintiff “otherwise qualified” for this lifeguard position? Why or why not?
What accommodations was the plaintiff requesting? Are they reasonable? Why or why not? Would they likely impose an undue hardship? Why or why not?
What did the county do well in this case? What things should it have done differently?
1. What are the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?
Keith successfully completed Oakland County's lifeguard training program and received his lifeguard certification. He was offered a part-time position based on his completion of the program and was then sent to Dr. Work for a mandatory medical examination. Dr. Work quickly failed Keith on the basis that he was deaf without thorough examination or assessment of his ability to perform lifeguard duties. The appeals court remanded the case to the district court citing that the district court did not reach the merits of this argument. The lower court was wrong to find Keith's dismissal correct because his deafness was not sufficient alone to disqualify him and reasonable accommodations should have been considered.
2. Does it appear that the type of “individualized inquiry” required by the ADA occurred in this case? Why or why not?
The ADA mandates an individualized inquiry in determining whether an applicant's disability or other condition disqualifies him from a particular position. It does not appear that an individualized inquiry occurred in this case. Dr. Work failed to assess Keith's ability to perform the lifeguard duties with or without reasonable accommodation. He decided Keith was incapable of performing the job duties because he was deaf, despite recognizing he was physically fit to perform the duties. Furthermore, Dr. Work had "no education, training, or experience in assessing the ability of deaf individuals to work as lifeguards".
3. Was the plaintiff “otherwise qualified” for this lifeguard position? Why or why not?
The plaintiff was "otherwise qualified" for the lifeguard position. He was physically fit, passed the lifeguard training program, and subsequently earned his lifeguard certification. He demonstrated his ability to identify and assist distressed swimmers. He also demonstrated the ability to communicate with other lifeguards during emergencies as well as patrons of the waterpark with nonverbal gestures.
4. What accommodations was the plaintiff requesting? Are they reasonable? Why or why not? Would they likely impose an undue hardship? Why or why not?
The accommodations Keith requested were for an ASL interpreter to be present at staff meetings and future classroom instructions. This accommodation was reasonable and would not impose an undue hardship on the employer. The ASL interpreter was not required or requested for him to perform lifeguard duties at the wave pool. The cost to provide an ASL interpreter during staff meetings and classroom training would not be substantial and could be planned for.
5. What did the county do well in this case? What things should it have done differently?
The county adequately assessed Keith's physical ability to perform lifeguard duties. They developed a reasonable plan to accommodate him and enable him to communicate with guests and fellow lifeguards. The county should have had Keith assessed by a physician trained to evaluate deaf individuals. Unfortunately, they relied on the opinion of Dr. Work which proved to be discriminatory and without medical footing.
References:
Walsh, D. J. (2016). Employment Law for Human Resource Practice (5th ed.). Cengage Learning
1. What are the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?
Keith completed all the training and received his certification to be a lifeguard. However, he has a disability, and the legal issue is that the ADA protects groups like Keith, and he is entitled to accommodation. According to Walsh (2016), the definition of disability under ADA includes: a physical or mental impairment that limits life activities, has a record of the impairment, and is regarded as having such an impairment. Additionally, the company offered him a position, and a company cannot terminate an employee based on a disability unless it directly affects his job performance.
The interests court discovered that the individualized request on the offended party was not sufficiently completed. The re-appraising court turned around the rundown judgment that the locale court had allowed for Oakland Country and remanded for facilitating procedures. Additionally, the Sixth Circuit follows the view that failing to engage in the interactive process is not an independent violation of the ADA (Walsh, 2016, p355).
2. Does it appear that the type of “individualized inquiry” required by the ADA occurred in this case? Why or why not?
No, in cases that involve individuals with handicaps, it is vital to decide the therapeutic conditions that an employee like Keith has and how they will affect his work performance. For Keith’s situation, Dr. Work was permitted to condemn whether Keith could play out the obligations of a lifeguard without trying to accommodate him. Crokus never knew whether or not Keith could perform the job requirement. His disability was the focal point. He gave his sentiment without considering how the ADA settles on such choices in these cases. According to the text, a proper evaluation involves considering the applicant’s characteristics, actual medical condition, and the effect the condition may have on his ability to perform the job in question (Walsh, 2016, p. 352).
3. Was the plaintiff “otherwise qualified” for this lifeguard position? Why or why not?
Yes, the plaintiff was “otherwise qualified” for this lifeguard position. He completed all the training and received certification. An external sound transmitter can also detect noises and people calling out to him. In addition, Keith can scan the water for distressed swimmers and, with the assistance of an ASL interpreter, can communicate verbal instructions.
4. What accommodations was the plaintiff requesting? Are they reasonable? Why or why not? Would they likely impose undue hardship? Why or why not?
Keith requested an ASL interpreter to be at all meetings and classroom instruction. I think this accommodation is reasonable because it will help with his communication and understanding during meetings and classroom instructions. I do not believe it would impose an undue hardship because this accommodation is restricted to Keith.
5. What did the county do well in this case? What things should it have done differently?
The county conducted research and proved that Keith was disabled during an evaluation. Stavale considered his accommodations, and Dr. Work approved his receiving employment if his accommodation were met. Keith should have been given a chance to prove his disability did not affect his job performance. Additionally, ADA guidelines were not considered before deciding to put his employment on hold. All the concerns were irrelevant, and he should’ve been given a chance to show that.
Walsh, D. J. (2016). Employment Law for Human Resource Practice (5th ed.). Cengage Learning.
.png)