Background
John Buccieri, who is deaf and uses American Sign Language, applied for a Chair Car Driver position at Brewster Ambulance Service. The role required frequent verbal communication with dispatch, patients, and facility staff to ensure patient safety during medical transport. Buccieri requested Video Relay Services and a phone holder as accommodations. After a ride-along, Brewster determined Buccieri could not safely perform the essential communication functions and rejected his application. Buccieri sued, and a jury returned a split verdict finding for Buccieri on the failure to engage in the interactive process but for Brewster on the failure to hire claim. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law for Brewster on all counts.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo and affirmed the district court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law. The court held that no reasonable jury could conclude there was a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed Buccieri to perform the essential communications functions of the Chair Car Driver or Day Care Van Driver positions without undue hardship. The court noted that the ADA does not require an employer to accommodate a disability by foregoing an essential function of the position. The proposed Video Relay Services were found to pose safety risks due to distracted driving, and the radio system used by Brewster was deemed safer. Furthermore, Buccieri presented no evidence that visual monitoring protocols could ensure patient safety in all conditions. Since the record foreclosed a finding that Buccieri could perform the essential duties with reasonable accommodation, the employer could not be liable for failing to engage in the interactive process.
We hold that no reasonable jury could conclude that there was a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed Buccieri to perform the essential communications functions of the driver positions without undue hardship to Brewster.
Buccieri v. Brewster Ambulance Serv., Inc., 792 F. Supp. 3d 273, 283 (D. Mass. 2025)
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces that an employer is not liable for failing to engage in the interactive process when the evidence demonstrates that no reasonable accommodation exists that would enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the job without undue hardship.