## Facts

- Nicholas A. Keith, deaf since birth, communicates primarily in American Sign Language and can detect some sounds when using a cochlear implant with an external transmitter.
- Keith completed the county’s junior lifeguard course (2006) and regular lifeguard training (2007) with an ASL interpreter who relayed verbal instruction but did not assist with rescue tasks; Keith became certified.
- Keith applied for a lifeguard job at the county wave pool and received a conditional offer, subject to a medical exam by a county-appointed physician.
- During the exam, the physician stated that Keith could not be a lifeguard because he was deaf and recommended he be allowed to work only with “constant accommodation” (such as another lifeguard’s continual presence), citing liability concerns.
- County officials consulted safety and risk-management personnel who raised concerns about emergency communication for a deaf lifeguard.
- Keith and a county recreation specialist identified possible accommodations, including an ASL interpreter for meetings/classroom instruction and other on-deck adjustments.
- The county withdrew the conditional offer and later formally denied the application based on the prior evaluations.

## Issues

1. Whether Keith was “otherwise qualified” to perform the lifeguard job’s essential functions, with or without reasonable accommodation, under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
2. Whether the county satisfied the requirement of an individualized assessment and meaningfully engaged in the interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations.
3. Whether the proposed accommodations were unreasonable or would impose an undue hardship as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the county and remanded.
- The court held there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Keith could perform the position’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.
- The court concluded the county’s reliance on conclusory medical and risk opinions, without adequately exploring proposed accommodations, left factual questions for a jury.
- The reversal applied to both the ADA Title I and Rehabilitation Act § 504 claims.

## Legal Principles

- To establish a prima facie ADA employment discrimination claim, a plaintiff must show disability, qualification (with or without reasonable accommodation), and an adverse action because of disability; the employer then must show undue hardship to avoid accommodation.
- Qualification and “essential functions” require a fact-specific assessment; categorical assumptions about a disability are insufficient.
- The ADA requires an individualized, evidence-based inquiry into whether the person can perform the job; generalized safety or liability concerns, without functional analysis, may be rejected as speculative.
- Failure to engage in the interactive process is not standalone liability, but it can be evidence that the employer did not satisfy its accommodation obligations.
- Disputes about the feasibility and burden of accommodations, and about claimed safety risks, commonly present fact questions not suitable for summary judgment.
- In this employment context, Rehabilitation Act standards generally track ADA standards, so the same analysis applies to both statutes.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that a jury could reasonably find that the county excluded a deaf lifeguard applicant based on generalized assumptions and untested safety concerns rather than an individualized assessment and consideration of feasible accommodations; summary judgment for the employer was therefore improper under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.


Keith v. Cnty. of Oakland, 703 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. 2013)