In Matter of New York State Unified Ct. Sys. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2020 NY Slip Op 01252 (App. Div. 1st Dept. Feb. 20, 2020), the court upheld a finding of disability discrimination on behalf of a hearing-impaired court officer.
From the decision:
The Commissioner’s finding of discrimination is supported by substantial evidence. First, Zaic, currently a per diem court interpreter for OCA in its courts and in other courts, established a prima facie case that OCA discriminated against him on account of his disability of some hearing loss in his right ear (Melman v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 98 AD3d 107, 112-113 [1st Dept 2012]; Bennett v Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 AD3d 29, 35 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 811 ). Zaic sufficiently demonstrated that upon the provision of reasonable accommodation, namely, a hearing aid, he can perform in a reasonable manner the essential functions of a court officer-trainee (Executive Law § 292 ; Romanello v Intesa Sanpaolo, S.p.A., 22 NY3d 881, 883-884 ).
Among other things, Zaic passed the written test for the court officer-trainee position and was conditionally hired. In addition, although the job duties are different, he adequately performed the functions of court interpreter without a hearing aid and without complaints from those who used his services. OCA bans the use of hearing aids on the job or for the audiometric test to medically qualify for the position. Zaic was not obligated to be evaluated for and purchase a hearing aid, and to retake the audiometric test, at his expense, to further make his prima facie case after OCA made clear it still would deem him unqualified and reject such test results.
Permitting court officers to wear a hearing aid is a reasonable accommodation and would not, as OCA argues, impose undue hardship on OCA by posing any “direct threat,” i.e. “a significant risk of substantial harm to the . . . safety of the employee or others” (9 NYCRR 466.11[g][I]; Executive Law §§ 292[21-e], 296[a]; Pimentel v Citibank, N.A., 29 AD3d 141, 145 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 707 ). OCA cites only to the physical demands of the job and the speculative risk that a hearing aid could become dislodged in a [*2]scuffle or fail to operate in an emergency. OCA’s argument is undermined by its own policy permitting court officer-trainee candidates to meet its vision standard with or without corrective lenses or glasses, which could be lost or become dislodged in a scuffle.
Next, OCA failed to provide any legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its decision. An individual may be denied employment because of a disability only if that condition will prevent him from performing in a reasonable manner the activities involved in the job or occupation sought, based on an individualized assessment of the specific individual (Matter of State Div. of Human Rights [Granelle], 70 NY2d 100, 106-107 ). No sufficiently individualized assessment occurred here, nor does OCA’s formula take into account the ability of someone with asymmetrical hearing loss to perform the essential functions of a court officer-trainee.
Similarly, while OCA’s preference for those with a minimal amount of hearing acuity might be a bona fide occupational qualification (Executive Law § 296[d]), its preference for hearing acuity without the use of a hearing aid is not.
As to the penalty, the court concluded that “[g]iven OCA’s blanket policy barring hearing-impaired persons from employment as court officers and its failure to accommodate Zaic who had an asymmetric hearing loss, the civil penalty of $30,000 was correctly assessed” in accordance with New York Executive Law § 297[c].