James McElwee is in his mid-30s with a neurodevelopmental disorder formally classified as Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) and informally called an autism spectrum disorder.

McElwee sued, alleging that the County had violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by dismissing him from the volunteer program without providing him a reasonable accommodation for his mental impairment.

Following discovery, the County moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the County’s motion, holding that McElwee was not “‘substantially limited’ in the major life activity of interacting with others and therefore was not “disabled” under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, but on different grounds: The appellate court concluded that McElwee failed to present sufficient evidence to that he was discriminated against because of his disability.

McElwee’s behavior was indisputably a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for dismissing him from the program. The court reasoned that the extent to which McElwee’s behavior – which he attributed to his disability – disqualified him from participating in Valley View’s volunteer program was more easily addressed by asking whether a reasonable accommodation for his disability existed.

McElwee claimed that Darwin should have worked with him to help him behave more appropriately, and explained his disability to the affected Valley View employees so they would be more tolerant of his behavior. The Second Circuit disagreed, finding that his solutions would have created an undue hardship.

First, the court observed that McElwee’s proposed accommodation for Valley View to work with him to obtain additional therapy was unreasonable as a matter of law because he failed to offer any assurance that it would have enabled him to meet the essential eligibility requirements of Valley View’s volunteer program in the near future.

Second, the court noted that requiring others to tolerate misconduct was not the kind of accommodation contemplated by the ADA.

Because accommodating McElwee’s request would have imposed an undue hardship on Valley View, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment.

Related Resources:

  • McElwee v. County of Orange (Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
  • What is a Reasonable Accommodation? (FindLaw’s Free Enterprise)
  • Reasonable Accommodation Can’t Eliminate Essential Functions (FindLaw’s Eighth Circuit Blog)

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules