Reyazuddin v. Montgomery County, Maryland

789 F.3d 407 (2015)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Reyazuddin v. Montgomery County, Maryland

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
789 F.3d 407 (2015)

  • Written by Arlyn Katen, JD

Facts

In 2008, Montgomery County, Maryland (the county) (defendant) opened a consolidated call center called MC311. Yasmin Reyazuddin (plaintiff), a blind woman, had worked for the county’s department of health and human services in a comparable job since 2002. The county planned to transfer Reyazuddin to MC311 but ultimately refused, claiming that it would be too expensive to make MC311’s software accessible to Reyazuddin. Instead, Reyazuddin’s supervisors pieced together assignments that amounted to only part-time work. Reyazuddin sued the county in federal district court, arguing that the county had violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to reasonably accommodate her disability. Additionally, Reyazuddin alleged that the county had violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to hire her for a vacant MC311 position in 2012. The county moved for summary judgment. Reyazuddin’s expert witness stated that a specific technology solution that had worked in other call centers could make MC311’s software compatible with Reyazuddin’s screen-reader software and estimated that it would cost $129,600 to implement. The county’s expert countered that the solution’s lowest possible cost was $648,000. The county also argued that Reyazuddin’s proposed accommodations would alter MC311’s employee-facing portion, which could increase server downtime, in turn creating negative user experiences. The county also emphasized its tiny budget for disability accommodations: $500 for each department and an extra $15,000 in the county’s overall budget (which totaled $3.73 billion in 2010). The district court granted the county’s summary-judgment motion, crediting the county’s arguments and finding that the proposed accommodation’s high cost would present an undue burden. Reyazuddin appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Diaz, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership