Teacher denied job sues district, claiming discrimination

A teacher sued a school district for discrimination, claiming it declined to hire her after learning of her visual impairment.

In support of her lawsuit, the teacher alleged the following facts:

The teacher suffered from cone dystrophy, a degenerative retinal disease. She was legally blind and could not identify faces or read facial expressions. She could, however, see silhouettes of people and objects. She used a cane and guide dog to help her walk. She could not read standard print, but could read emails and other documents when magnified. 

A district posted a position for a sixth-grade social studies teacher. The teacher interviewed for the position via Zoom on three occasions. At the end of the first interview, she was offered the position, contingent on a successful background and reference check. 

A few hours after her interview, the teacher sent an email to the district, informing it that she had a visual impairment. In the email, she stated that her disability would have no effect at all on her ability to perform the essential functions of her job. Regarding classroom management concerns, the teacher explained that she had “already developed and employed strategies that have proven to be highly effective” in the classroom. 

Approximately a week after her first interview, the teacher interviewed with the district a second time. The teacher alleged that during that interview she was asked: “How are you going to hide your blindness? Or the kids will eat you alive.” 

In a third interview, the district representatives reviewed various documents with the teacher, including the job description and a document titled “Classroom and Campus Non-Negotiables.” These documents addressed the essential functions of the teaching position, including responsibilities for classroom management, safety and security. 

After receiving and reviewing that documentation, the teacher sent an email to the district, explaining why she believed she could perform the essential functions of the teaching position. In that email, she also identified accommodations that she would need to perform the essential functions of the job. These accommodations included screen-reading and magnification software, a closed-circuit TV, a tablet and training on the school’s programs. She also indicated that she needed to bring her trained, certified guide dog to the classroom. 

The teacher was not selected for the position. She filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and ultimately filed suit in district court, alleging that the district discriminated against her on the basis of her disability by not hiring her because of her visual impairment. 

The district requested that the lawsuit be dismissed because the teacher had no direct evidence of discrimination, and failed to show that she was qualified to perform the essential functions of a sixth-grade social studies teacher.

The court agreed with the teacher that she had provided direct evidence of discrimination based on her visual impairment. For comments in the workplace to provide sufficient evidence of discrimination, they must be:

1. related to the protected class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member; 
2. close in time to the adverse employment decision; 
3. made by an individual with authority over the employment decision at issue; and 
4. related to the employment decision at issue. 

The court agreed that those elements had been met when a representative from the district asked "how will you hide your blindness?" during the second interview. 

First, blindness is the reason that the teacher was considered disabled and therefore in a protected class. 

Second, the question was asked only two weeks before the teacher was not hired. 

Third, the person who asked the question was the same person who informed the teacher that she had not been selected for the job. Therefore, that person clearly had authority over whether to hire the teacher. 

Fourth and finally, the question was obviously related to the employment decision at issue because it was asked during a job interview.

However, although the teacher provided direct evidence of discrimination, the court found that the teacher had failed to meet another required element of her claim, namely that she was qualified for the position of classroom teacher. 

According to the Americans With Disabilities Act, in order to prove discrimination based on a disability, the teacher must prove that (1) she had a disability; (2) she was qualified for the job; and (3) an adverse employment decision was made solely because of her disability.

There was no dispute that the teacher had a disability. However, under the second criteria, the teacher had to show that she was qualified fir the job. In order to do this she must show that either  she could perform the essential functions of the job in spite of her disability, or, if she could not,  that a reasonable accommodation of her disability would enable her to perform the essential functions of the job. 

The job responsibilities of a social studies teacher include, in part, managing student behavior and taking all necessary and reasonable precautions to protect students, equipment, materials and facilities. The teacher admitted that she could not perform these classroom management tasks alone. 

Due to her poor vision, she could not determine what exactly students were doing in the classroom. For example, in a live classroom setting, she was unable to determine whether a student had a weapon, was engaged in sexual activity, was looking at a cellphone, was cheating, or was otherwise misbehaving. 

The teacher requested a full-time aide be assigned to her as a reasonable accommodation to assist her with these functions. However, the court determined that this proposed accommodation was not reasonable. Therefore, the teacher was not "qualified" for the job as required by the ADA and the district was not in violation of the law when it declined to hire her. The case was dismissed.

The teacher has appealed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the outcome could be modified by the court of appeals at a later date.