A Hawaii federal court recently held that a Honolulu Mazda dealership must go to trial to defend against claims that one of its managers discriminated against a deaf applicant.  EEOC v. MJC, Inc. (July 11, 2019).

Factual Background

Ryan Vicari applied for a detailer position at Cutter Mazda of Honolulu.  According to Cutter Mazda’s Assistant Service Manager, Guy Tsurumaki, there was no detailer position available at the time, but he interviewed Vicari for a lot attendant position.  After learning Vicari was deaf, however, Tsurumaki advised that his deafness presented safety concerns and suggested he consider a position in a different industry.  The EEOC sued Cutter Mazda on Vicari’s behalf claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

Position “Available”

A claim for disparate treatment in hiring requires proof that a person applied for an available position for which he was qualified.  Cutter Mazda argued this claim should be dismissed because there was no detailer job available at the time of Vicari’s interview.  The Court noted, however, that a detailer position became available three weeks after Vicari’s interview, and two individuals without hearing disabilities were hired as detailers within 3 weeks after that.  According to the Court, a position does not necessarily need to be available on the day of the interview to be considered “available.”  The Court determined the position was “available” and declined to dismiss this claim.

Vicarious Liability

Cutter Mazda also argued it should not be liable for Tsurumaki’s actions because he was not a “supervisor” in that he did not have final authority to make hiring decisions.  The Court observed that Tsurumaki conducted interviews and made recommendations to the Service Manager who rarely departed from his recommendations.  Additionally, Tsurumaki had authority to sign off on applications when the Service Manager was unavailable.  The Court therefore concluded that Cutter Mazda failed to demonstrate it could not be vicariously liable for Tsurumaki’s conduct.

Factual Disputes

In addition to the above issues, the Court held that the case must go to trial because of the existence of several factual disputes, including whether Vicari was qualified for the lot attendant or detailer positions.

Takeaways

• A position does not need to be available on the day of the interview to be considered “available.”
• Employers should ensure their managers are trained to appropriately respond to applicants with disabilities, or risk being held vicariously liable. HEC offers training on Basic Employment Laws and Interviewing through the Fundamentals of Supervision Series.