Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—1st Cir.: No reasonable accommodation would enable deaf applicant to perform chair car driver duties, (Jul 14, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The applicant was born deaf and his primary language is American Sign Language.

No reasonable jury could find there was a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed a deaf applicant to perform the essential functions of a driver of a vehicle that transports patients in wheelchairs without an undue hardship to the employer, the First Circuit held, affirming the district court’s grant of JMOL to the medical transportation services company on his ADA claims. The undisputed testimony established that chair car drivers are required to communicate with dispatch, patients, and facilities staff and the applicant presented no evidence to rebut that his proposed tablet-based or any cell-phone-based accommodation would pose safety risks to all concerned (Buccieri v. Brewster Ambulance Service, Inc., No. 25-1732 (1st Cir. July 13, 2026)).

The family-owned company operates close to 300 vehicles daily, including ambulances, day care vans, and chair cars, which transport a single wheelchair-using patient to, among other things, medical appointments. The company, according to the CEO, staffs chair cars with only one driver who has to communicate with patients, dispatch, and medical facilities. The patients, who typically come from skilled nursing facilities, sometimes experience medical emergencies that require an immediate response from the driver.

Radio system. The company uses a radio system for communications that allows a driver to talk to dispatch by picking up a small microphone clipped on the dashboard, depressing a button on the side of the mic, and speaking into it without taking his eyes off the road. Drivers also must communicate with staff at the facilities where patients are picked up and dropped off.

How can we help you? The applicant, who was born deaf and who uses American Sign Language, applied for a chair car driver position in January 2019. He was scheduled for an interview with a regional manager (RM) who had never driven a chair car. After consulting with the HR manager, the RM emailed the job description to the applicant and informed him that the “biggest hurdle will be communicating effectively with our dispatch center and the clients.” He also asked the applicant to “think of ways we can help you achieve the requirements of the job.”

Accommodation request. During his in-person interview with the RM, the applicant, through an ASL interpreter, requested to use Video Relay Services (VRS) to communicate with dispatch. VRS is a federally funded service that allows persons with hearing disabilities who use ASL to communicate with voice telephone users through video equipment. The VRS system would connect the applicant to an ASL interpreter via a video application on his personal cell phone while the ASL interpreter is on a telephone call with the hearing party.

Offer. The RM recommended that the company hire the applicant, provide the VRS system and a phone holder accommodation, and provide an in-person interpreter for orientation and training. The CEO, however, expressed concern that the applicant would not be able to communicate with staff or hear the radio. Nonetheless, the company extended a verbal offer to the applicant and arranged for him to join chair cars on trips picking up and dropping off patients.

The next day, the RM emailed the HR manager noting the chair car supervisor’s concerns regarding the applicant’s ability to communicate with clients and facility staff. The HR manager then contacted the supervisor of the company’s daycare van services regarding any available positions driving a 15-passenger van that transports less medically fragile patients. The supervisor, however, expressed the same concerns about communication.

Rescinded. Based on these concerns, the company ultimately rescinded the applicant’s offer. In an explanatory email, it attached a detailed document identifying the specific issues it had with his ability to perform the position and invited further conversation. The applicant never responded to the invitation or raised any questions with the company.

Lower court proceedings. The applicant sued under the ADA and during the trial on the liability portion of his claim, the company moved for judgment as a matter of law based on insufficiency of the evidence. The court denied the motion and the jury returned a split verdict, finding for the company on the applicant’s failure-to-hire theory but for the applicant on his interactive-process theory.

The court, explaining it had "serious doubts that there was sufficient evidence to support the interactive process verdict,” directed the parties to present supplemental briefing on this issue. It ultimately granted the company’s motion for JMOL, entering judgment in its favor on all counts.

Undue hardship. Affirming, the First Circuit explained that undisputed trial testimony established that chair car drivers are required to communicate with dispatch, patients, and facilities staff, and no accommodation would permit the applicant to do so without imposing an undue hardship on the company. That undisputed evidence, the court continued, established that this was also true for day care van drivers.

Further, the applicant failed to rebut the contention that his proposed tablet-based or any cell-phone-based accommodation for communicating with dispatch, even if it was available at the relevant time, would pose safety risks, said the court, which the ADA did not require the company to undertake. The company’s radio communication system, the court observed, has safety advantages over the applicant’s requested tablet-based communications because it “allows drivers to connect instantly to dispatch with the press of one button on the radio and without taking their eyes off the road” and the company established that distracted driving is the number one cause of accidents involving its vehicles and that cell phone use is the number one cause of distracted driving.

While the applicant argued that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that a structured mirror monitoring protocol would allow him sufficient visual monitoring of patients to supervise them for medical emergencies, the court found this did not meet the company’s service and safety standards. Nor was there any evidence mirror-based monitoring could ensure patient safety in darker conditions, the court stated, noting that the applicant presented "no evidence, none, that he had that ability" to speak to patients.

The court also found no evidence to support a finding that there were reasonable accommodations that would have allowed the applicant to perform the essential communications functions of the day care van driver position. Indeed, the manager’s undisputed assessment was that the role of day care van driver required the same amount of communications as the chair car driver role, but with even more patients in the day care van vehicles.

Accordingly, the court affirmed on the lower court’s grant of JMOL on the sufficiency of the evidence basis.

The case is No. 25-1732.

Judge: Lynch, S.

Attorneys: Angie I. Martell (Iglesia Martell Law Firm) for John Buccieri. Sarah B. Herlihy (Herlihy Law) for Brewster Ambulance Service, Inc.

Companies: Brewster Ambulance Service, Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Procedure MaineNews MassachusettsNews NewHampshireNews PuertoRicoNews RhodeIslandNews