Verdicts

Testing Procedures for Job Certification

Court denied summary judgment to state employer regarding accommodation during job certification test. Falchenberg v. New York City Department of Education, 04 Civ. 7598, S.D.N.Y., October 20, 2006, NYLJ, Oct 26, 2006.

New York State and National Evaluation Systems Inc. (NES) denied a dyslexic teacher accessible study materials for NES-administered state education department-mandated certification. After she was terminated for failing to pass certification, the state and NES offered her a 'reader' and 'transcriber' as an accommodation. The teacher's original complaint was dismissed and in her amended complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), she claimed the accommodation for her learning disability, i.e., that she dictate spelling, punctuation, capitalization and paragraphing in oral test answers, was an illusory accommodation. The court denied the defendants judgment on the pleadings. It held that a statement that the plaintiff '[was] not a qualified individual' applied to her employment discrimination claim, not her public accommodation claim under ADA Titles II and III. In the context of examinations and testing procedures, the determination of whether a given set of accommodations is reasonable is 'a fact-specific, case-by-case inquiry' that could not be conducted on the record.

Testing Procedures for Job Certification

Court denied summary judgment to state employer regarding accommodation during job certification test. Falchenberg v. New York City Department of Education, 04 Civ. 7598, S.D.N.Y., October 20, 2006, NYLJ, Oct 26, 2006.

New York State and National Evaluation Systems Inc. (NES) denied a dyslexic teacher accessible study materials for NES-administered state education department-mandated certification. After she was terminated for failing to pass certification, the state and NES offered her a 'reader' and 'transcriber' as an accommodation. The teacher's original complaint was dismissed and in her amended complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), she claimed the accommodation for her learning disability, i.e., that she dictate spelling, punctuation, capitalization and paragraphing in oral test answers, was an illusory accommodation. The court denied the defendants judgment on the pleadings. It held that a statement that the plaintiff '[was] not a qualified individual' applied to her employment discrimination claim, not her public accommodation claim under ADA Titles II and III. In the context of examinations and testing procedures, the determination of whether a given set of accommodations is reasonable is 'a fact-specific, case-by-case inquiry' that could not be conducted on the record.