The Atlanta Braves organization has found itself the subject of an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit. Filed in Georgia federal court, the suit alleges that the organization rejected an IT director candidate because he is deaf.[1]
The complainant, Clyde McKinney Jr., is an experienced IT professional who also happens to be deaf. He is proficient in American Sign Language and lip reading, can communicate verbally, and sometimes requires a translator.[2] The lawsuit states that McKinney has 23-years of experience as a data and network system engineer and is entirely capable of working in an office environment.[3]
In early 2023, McKinney easily completed the first two interview rounds with the Braves. He said he was praised for his robust experience and was told that he would be an asset to the organization’s IT department.[4] It was during his third and final interview with the team’s senior VP of technology, Scott Waid, that McKinney noticed an emphasis on his deafness.[5] Waid asked questions about McKinney’s deafness and speculated about the potential costs of hiring an interpreter, among other things.[6]
Waid even asked McKinney about his experience attending a deaf awareness event at a Braves game – a topic which bore no relevance to the IT director role.[7] As the complaint put it, this question was “the equivalent of asking an African American IT candidate if he had enjoyed the HBCU night promotion event the team sponsors every summer.”[8]
McKinney alleges that the team cared more about the potential costs of accommodating his disability than his professional accolades.[9] Upon receiving his rejection, McKinney’s suspicions were confirmed by a recruiter who noted that the team was concerned with added costs of accommodating his deafness.[10] Once the recruiter knew McKinney was pursuing legal action, she went silent on him.[11]
To McKinney, the Braves acted in clear violation of the ADA. The standard that governs ADA cases is a “but for” causation standard. Here, but for his disability, McKinney argues that he would have remained a viable candidate for the IT director position.[12] If potential added costs of McKinney’s disability are the true source of his rejection, the Braves could be facing some serious legal and PR trouble.
Throughout his interview process, McKinney did not request that an interpreter be employed. Rather, he could have performed the job with or without reasonable accommodations and has a more than 23-year-long career to prove it. It was Waid and the Braves organization that took issue with McKinney’s hearing impairment.
It is hard to believe that accommodating someone’s hearing impairment could have an impact on a professional team’s bottom line, especially considering the amount of hearing-related technology today. Had McKinney needed accommodations, the potential added costs seem relatively minor in the context of a team as successful as the Braves. Discriminatory hiring based on one’s disability is not an excuse for any organization, but especially not for one of the MLB’s premier franchises.
In a world that now emphasizes inclusion and equity, McKinney’s lawsuit makes one think that the 2021 World Champions’ hiring process was anything but inclusive or equitable. The fact that Waid asked McKinney about the team’s deaf awareness event indicates that the organization may have some misplaced priorities. Clearly, the organization wants to be seen as “doing good,” but perhaps it should put its money where its mouth is.
It is important to note that there is currently only one side to this story. The Braves have not yet replied to the complaint and have yet to issue a public statement. It will be interesting to see how they respond to McKinney’s allegations. The status of the case will continue to be monitored.
Image credit: Atlanta Braves
[1] https://www.law360.com/sports-and-betting/articles/1822242?nl_pk=9ba2e64f-6b40-49a9-8029-c1a37ae85bfb&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sports-and-betting&utm_content=2024-04-08&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=2.
[2] Id; McKinney v. Atlanta National League Baseball Club LLC, case number 1:24-cv-01438, page 4.
[3] Id.
[4] https://www.law360.com/sports-and-betting/articles/1822242?nl_pk=9ba2e64f-6b40-49a9-8029-c1a37ae85bfb&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sports-and-betting&utm_content=2024-04-08&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=2.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id; McKinney v. Atlanta National League Baseball Club LLC, case number 1:24-cv-01438, page 5.
[8] https://www.law360.com/sports-and-betting/articles/1822242?nl_pk=9ba2e64f-6b40-49a9-8029-c1a37ae85bfb&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sports-and-betting&utm_content=2024-04-08&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=2.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] https://www.law360.com/sports-and-betting/articles/1822242?nl_pk=9ba2e64f-6b40-49a9-8029-c1a37ae85bfb&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sports-and-betting&utm_content=2024-04-08&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=2; McKinney v. Atlanta National League Baseball Club LLC, case number 1:24-cv-01438, page 8-9.
[12] Id.