## Facts

- Michael K. Breece had a severe hearing impairment; he could not hear loud voices and often used a sign-language interpreter to communicate.
- Alliance Tractor-Trailer Training II, Inc. (Alliance), a private company, operated a tractor-trailer driver training school in Wytheville, Virginia.
- Alliance’s seven-week, 200+ hour course was known in the trucking industry for extensive individualized, in-cab instruction while students drove tractor-trailers on public roads.
- About 60% of the program time was spent driving, with students progressing from smaller roads to larger highways and then interstate driving, and from empty to loaded trailers.
- On January 23, 1992, Breece applied and interviewed with Alliance personnel; Alliance questioned his qualifications because of his hearing impairment.
- Because on-road instruction required real-time communication between instructor and student in the cab, Breece suggested ways to meet the program’s requirements despite his hearing impairment, including:
  - using a sign-language interpreter in the cab during road-training segments,
  - substituting driving simulators and increased classroom instruction for some in-cab communication demands, and
  - using a speaker or other device to increase the instructor’s voice volume.
- Alliance rejected Breece’s application, stating it could not safely or reasonably accommodate him during the public-road training segments.

## Issues

1. Whether Breece had a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA.
2. Whether Alliance’s truck-driving school was a “public accommodation” covered by ADA Title III as a place of education.
3. Whether Alliance discriminated under Title III by refusing to admit Breece because of his hearing impairment.
4. Whether Alliance carried its burden to justify exclusion on safety grounds by showing Breece posed a significant risk (a “direct threat”) that could not be reduced to an acceptable level through reasonable modifications or auxiliary aids.
5. Whether the auxiliary aids or modifications Breece proposed were unreasonable because they would fundamentally alter the nature of the program or impose an undue burden.

## Decision

- The court found that Breece’s severe hearing impairment was a physical impairment that substantially limited major life activities; he also had a record of such impairment and was regarded as having such an impairment, making him disabled under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).
- The court held that Alliance, as a place of education, was a public accommodation under 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) and was subject to ADA Title III.
- The court concluded that Alliance violated Title III by denying Breece admission based on his hearing impairment.
- The court rejected Alliance’s safety-based refusal because Alliance did not show, based on an individualized and objective assessment, that Breece would present a significant risk that could not be reduced by reasonable measures such as auxiliary aids or program modifications.
- Judgment was entered for Breece on his ADA Title III claim.

## Legal Principles

- A private educational program is a “public accommodation” under Title III when it falls within the ADA’s listed categories, including “place of education.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).
- A plaintiff is disabled under the ADA if he (1) has a physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, (2) has a record of such impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).
- Title III prohibits denying an individual the opportunity to participate in a public accommodation’s goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations on the basis of disability when the individual can meet essential requirements with reasonable modifications and appropriate auxiliary aids and services. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(a), 12182(b).
- Safety-based exclusion must rest on an individualized, evidence-based assessment of risk; generalized assumptions about a disability are not enough to establish a “direct threat.”
- A public accommodation must consider auxiliary aids and reasonable modifications that would permit participation, and may refuse them only if it proves that the measures would fundamentally alter the nature of the service or impose an undue burden, or that a significant risk would remain even with such measures.

## Conclusion

Breece v. Alliance Tractor-Trailer Training II held that a truck-driving school operating as a place of education covered by ADA Title III could not reject a deaf applicant based on generalized safety concerns where the applicant proposed auxiliary aids and other measures to meet the program’s on-road training requirements and the school failed to justify exclusion through an individualized, objective showing of unmitigable risk or infeasibility.


Breece v. Alliance Tractor-Trailer Training II, 824 F. Supp. 576 (1993)