Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Mass.: Deaf JetBlue crewmember, fired because he couldn’t work at noisy gates, beats summary judgment on some claims, (Nov 19, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

However, the airline can renew its motion to provide evidence supporting its argument that reassignment back to the ticketing counter would require it to override its seniority-based assignment system.

A former JetBlue airport operations crewmember, who is deaf and wears a hearing aid, will get a trial on his claims that the airline violated Massachusetts law by failing transfer him back to the ticket counter as a reasonable accommodation of his disability after a medical assessment showed he could not safely perform the essential functions of the job at airport gates, and then retaliatorily terminating him when his leave expired. In a mixed ruling on the airline’s motion for summary judgment, a federal district court agreed to dismiss his claim that the airline should have extended his unpaid leave until a specialist baggage recovery position opened, explaining that Massachusetts law does not require reassignment to vacant positions as a reasonable accommodation. He also failed to present evidence suggesting that the airline denied him a vacant spot for retaliatory reasons (Ozek v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No. 1:24-cv-10025-IT (D. Mass. Nov. 13, 2025)).

In January 2022, JetBlue hired the employee as an airport operations crewmember at Boston Logan Airport. Prior to hire, he disclosed that he is permanently deaf in both ears and uses a hearing aid in his left ear. He received accommodations during training and successfully passed his 90-day introductory period at the ticket counter.

Ticket counter duties. While at the ticket counter, he checked in customers, scanned their luggage, and helped them at the kiosk. Though he also sometimes needed to make phone calls to assist customers and he was unable to use the work phone, the airline provided him with a phone number to call others at the airline from his own phone (which is connected via Bluetooth to his hearing aid). If an internal call was received at the ticket counter, he could ask a coworker to help.

Reassigned to gate. On June 6, 2022, after a successful bid for reassignment to the gates function, he began training in his new role. However, after a few days, he alerted the airline’s ADA team that he was having difficulty communicating via the walkie-talkie radio. In response to his doctor’s suggested accommodations, the airline provided him with a Bluetooth-compatible handheld radio that could pair to his hearing aid and a microphone to use with the radio to amplify his hearing. However, he continued to have issues with the new technology. Meanwhile, his colleagues and supervisors reported concerns of performance and safety issues.

Communications with doctor. An ADA analyst began communicating with his doctor about his ability to perform the essential functions of the job, who confirmed that a noisy environment like an airport can be very challenging for him to hear and perform in and suggested that in his current role, he would need a partner at all times. His doctor also recommended that he be placed in a role that did not heavily rely on hearing.

Unpaid leave. JetBlue subsequently advised the employee that the airline had determined that he could not perform the essential functions of the position with or without a reasonable accommodation. The ADA analyst offered him “position reassignment,” which meant he would be placed on three months of unpaid leave while seeking an alternative position. He declined the offer, and on October 3, JetBlue removed him from active duty and placed him on an unpaid medical leave.

Functional assessment. On October 11, his doctor recommended that another audiologist perform a “functional gain” assessment test while he wore his hearing aid to evaluate how he was hearing with noise present and without noise. The results of the assessment, performed on November 21, confirmed that his ability to perceive speech in a noisy environment was severely limited. On December 20, the ADA team advised the employee that based on the medical opinions of the two doctors and his supervisors’ concerns, they could not grant his request to work as a crewmember due to safety related concerns that would require the removal of essential functions of the role.

Applies for other jobs. On December 21, he accepted the offer of a 3-month unpaid leave while seeking other JetBlue positions, which was later extended to June 22, 2023. Amongst other positions, he applied for and interviewed for a vacant baggage recovery specialist role. Though he was not selected for the position, he was deemed qualified should another position become vacant. He also applied for other positions for which was not deemed “as competitive” as other candidates.

Terminated. On June 22, JetBlue notified the employee that he was being terminated because: (1) he had not obtained another position during position reassignment and the airline was unable to provide him with indefinite leave; and (2) the airline had determined that he was permanently restricted from performing the essential functions of the crewmember role.

Lawsuit. He sued, alleging violations of Massachusetts law, and JetBlue sought summary judgment as to all claims. The court granted the motion on his hostile workplace and disparate treatment claims since he had waived them, and proceeded to analyze his failure to accommodate and retaliation claims on the merits.

Transfer to ticket counter. The employee presented sufficient evidence suggesting that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of the crewmember position at the ticket counter, and that a transfer back to the ticket counter would have been a reasonable accommodation, concluded the court. While his doctors’ medical opinions suggested that he may be unable to perform the job based on assessments in controlled environments, a jury could reasonably find that he did perform the job based on the fact that he held the position for 4-1/2 months and no disciplinary issues or complaints were raised during that time.

Though JetBlue argued that reassignment back to the ticketing counter would require the airline to override its seniority-based assignment system, it did not provide any evidence supporting this argument. However, in denying summary judgment as to this claim, the court stated that the airline could renew its motion and provide supplemental evidence as to its rules regarding bidding on the ticket counter function, the actual practice at Boston Logan Airport regarding such bidding, and the rotation of ticket counter employees to other functions prior to successfully bidding out of that function. Thus, the court denied summary judgment as to his request to be transferred back to the ticketing counter.

Extended leave. However, the court rejected his contention that extending his period of unpaid leave until a specialist baggage recovery position opened would have been a reasonable accommodation because he had been placed in a pool of eligible candidates for that position. Significantly, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that “the Massachusetts statute is less generous than the ADA” in that it does not require reassignment to vacant positions as a reasonable accommodation. Therefore, because the specialist baggage recovery position is a different position from his prior crewmember position, an extension of his unpaid leave would not have been a reasonable accommodation under Massachusetts law.

Retaliation. The court’s ruling as to the employee’s retaliation claim was also a mixed bag. First, the court tossed his claim that he was retaliatorily passed over for the baggage recovery specialist position. Finding no evidence of pretext, the court noted that he admitted that no coworker or supervisor at JetBlue ever insulted his ability to hear or communicate or ever made a statement about his hearing loss. However, because a jury could reasonably find that he could perform the essential functions of the crewmember role at the ticket counter, and that a transfer back to that role would have been a reasonable accommodation, he defeated summary judgment as to his alleged retaliatory termination.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-10025-IT.

Judge: Talwani, I.

Attorneys: Suzanne L. Herold (Herold Law Group) for Jonathan Ozek. Colby Berman (Akerman) for JetBlue Airways Corp.

Companies: JetBlue Airways Corp.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims MassachusettsNews