Last week, the Montgomery County Court of Appeals in Dayton affirmed summary judgment for a public school, although on different grounds than the judgment granted by the trial court. In short, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Political Subdivision and Tort Liability Act (PSTLA) did not apply to bar claims for employment discrimination, but that the plaintiff failed to properly plead or prove a prima facie case for disability discrimination based on her alleged multi-chemical sensitivity allergies. Ogilbee v. Board of Education of Dayton Public Schools, 2010-Ohio-1913, 23432.
According to the Court, the plaintiff clerical assistant alleged that she suffered from multi-chemical sensitivity, which was an allergy to certain perfumes and fragrances which gave her migraine headaches and restricted her ability to breath, sleep, concentrate and walk. Her union refused to assist her when she claimed that her allergies were exacerbated by a new work assignment because it was a "personal problem." She asked HR to be relocated to an empty office or other space or even another building, but these suggestions were rejected as unreasonable. Instead, the school gave her an air purifier and a fan and arranged for a contractor to rearrange her work space. According to the School, she refused to use them without explanation. After she filed a Charge of Discrimination, the School entered into a negotiated settlement agreement and transferred her to another position in another building. The School again attempted to accommodate her by permitting her to annually explain to her co-workers her need for them to not wear perfume, but she believed that after a year that some staff purposely "doused" themselves in perfume and the principal began acting on her complaints less and less. By 2006, the principal would no longer permit her to make her annual announcement. When she arrived at work with a note from her physician indicating that she needed to work in a space free from perfumes and strong odors because they exacerbate her migraine headaches and she had exhausted her paid leave, the School responded shortly thereafter by placing her on a one-year unpaid medical leave of absence because her requested accommodation was unreasonable in that she worked "in a reception area at a public school with over 800 students, 100+ employees, and the public who visit the school on a daily basis. There is no way that a scent-free environment can be guaranteed." When the School refused to reinstate her the following year when there had been no change in her medical condition, she filed a lawsuit in state court alleging disability discrimination and harassment. The trial court found that the School had PSTLA immunity.
Generally, under the PSTLA, "political subdivisions are not liable in damages for injury, death, or loss caused by them in connection with the execution of their functions. See R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). The PSTLA however does not apply to claims by an employee that relate to any matter that "arises out of the employment relationship." R.C. 2744.09(B)." Mysteriously, the trial court concluded that an employment discrimination claim does not arise out of the employment relationship and is more akin to an intentional court. In light of contrary authority to the contrary, the appellate court had no difficulty finding otherwise.
As for her disability discrimination claim, the court construed her argument as applying on to a perceived disability claim and concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that the School's HR Director perceived her allergy and migraine headaches to substantially limit any major life activities, including working. In particular, the Court rejected her argument that the School must have perceived her as disabled because it made several attempts to accommodate her allergy:
While lay people may think of an allergy as a disability, a "disability" in this context is, as we discussed above, a technical term with a very specific meaning. Also, [Plaintiff] makes much of the fact that [the HR Director], and others, tried, unsuccessfully, to accommodate her allergy, which she argues shows he thought she was disabled. But simply because an employer tries to make an employee's working-environment more comfortable by attempting to accommodate a particular physical characteristic does not mean that he thinks the employee has a "disability." As the statute makes clear, not every physical or mental impairment qualifies as a "disability." From the evidence, it appears that [the HR Director] considered [Plaintiff] to have an allergy, and he did all he thought reasonable to accommodate the allergy. No evidence suggests that [the HR Director] treated the allergy as severely limited her ability to work. [Plaintiff's] naked assertions about [the HR Director's] thoughts and motivations are not sufficient; she "'must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.'"
The Court does not explain how the School's placement of the plaintiff on a one-year unpaid medical leave was merely a reaction to a non-disabling allergy or how such action by the School was insufficient evidence that it perceived her as substantially limited by her allergy. It also does not explain why there was not enough of a factual dispute for a jury to consider. Perhaps the plaintiff never made the argument in her brief. In any event, the court granted summary judgment for the employer.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.
