Last month, the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Cuyahoga County reversed summary judgment in favor of a school district on a disability discrimination and retaliation claim brought by a terminated teacher. Johnson v. Cleveland City School Dist., 2011-Ohio-1917. In that case, the plaintiff teacher brought suit for a failure to accommodate her cervical myelopathy. In fact, she initially brought suit in federal court, which dismissed her federal claims on summary judgment . . . . . .twice . . . . after the Sixth Circuit once reversed. However, the federal court had declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims (disability discrimination, breach of contract and infliction of emotional distress) and she filed those in state court while her federal appeal proceeded. When the district court granted summary judgment again, the school attempted to dismiss the state court action based on res judicata, but the appellate court was not having any of that.
According to the Court's opinion, the teacher's physician recommended certain accommodations of her disability so that she would not get worn out. These medical restrictions were honored by the school for a number of years. Then, according to the teacher, a new administrator decided that they would not be accommodated any longer and she had to return to teaching a regular class, which the teacher said she could not do. When a stalemate ensued, the teacher took a medical leave of absence and filed a Charge of Discrimination. When the Charge was dismissed, the school denied to continue her leave and she returned to work, but still would not perform regular teaching duties. Instead, she requested a fitness for duty examination, which resulted in the same medical limitations as before.
At this point, the parties do not agree on what happened next. The plaintiff asserted that she produced a guidance counselor certificate and said she could perform those duties. The school denied that she ever applied for a counselor position. The school refused to accommodate all of her restrictions, but offered her three teaching positions. The teacher said that she agreed to accept one, but the school said that she denied all three positions. The school then fired her.
The Court of Appeals found that there were disputed issues of material facts as to whether the teacher had a covered disability and been accommodated and whether her termination was in retaliation for exercising protected rights in seeking a reasonable accommodation and filing a Charge of Discrimination. Therefore the case was remanded for a jury trial.
The trial court determined that the physician's conclusory diagnosis that the teacher had a "disability" did not create a disputed issue of fact about substantial limitations of major life activities, but the Court of Appeals disagreed. Moreover, two other physicians agreed that plaintiff was disabled.
The trial court had found that the plaintiff was not qualified because her restrictions on speaking prevented her from maintaining control over a classroom. However, again, the Court of Appeals disagreed because, among other things, she had received "excellent" performance evaluations since the restrictions were put in place years earlier.
Finally, the retaliation claim was revived because there was evidence that the school provided knowingly false information in the termination letter when it claimed that the teacher had declined an offered position, but the human resources' employees notes stated otherwise (as did the plaintiff teacher).
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.
