Federal Judge Upholds Disability Discrimination Verdict for Special Ed Worker
A federal judge has affirmed a jury's verdict that the Greenwich Board of Education failed to accommodate a teacher's disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
February 08, 2018 at 04:16 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge has affirmed a jury's verdict that the Greenwich Board of Education failed to accommodate a teacher's disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna F. Martinez of the District of Connecticut denied the board's motion to vacate the verdict and remand for a new trial on special-education assistant Elizabeth Presumey's ADA claims.
Presumey injured her shoulder in 2011 and requested her employer put her on light duty per her doctor's orders. According to Martinez's opinion, the defendant claimed there was no light duty in her job class and terminated Presumey on the grounds that she couldn't perform her duties.
The board argued toileting and feeding students with special needs are essential functions of the job that Presumey could not perform. Presumey agreed she could not perform those functions without accommodation, but argued they were not core functions. The jury sided with Presumey.
Several witnesses for the board testified that the essential duties could not be modified. However, Presumey argued that she worked with special-education assistants who had a wide range of disabilities.
“Some required only classroom support. Significantly, the plaintiff testified that the defendant did not require all professional assistants to lift and toilet students—these functions were waived for certain professional assistants,” Martinez said.
Presumey also testified that she had been placed on light duty before for previous injuries. She further testified that co-workers were placed on light duty, some permanently, for their injuries.
“Even under the more relaxed review standards of a motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 59, the jury's result was neither 'seriously erroneous' nor 'a miscarriage of justice,'” Martinez said.
“On this record, the jury reasonably could have concluded that lifting and toileting students were not essential functions of the job. The resolution of these issues at trial was a quintessential jury credibility issue,” Martinez said. “Although the defendant urges that the plaintiff's testimony was not credible, on a motion for a new trial, 'the jury is owed substantial deference in making credibility assessments.'”
The board also argued that Presumey did not prove that it was motivated by discrimination.
“Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff was unable to lift and toilet students because of her disability and that the defendant terminated her employment as a result,” Martinez said. “The defendant did not dispute that the plaintiff suffered an 'adverse employment action because of her disability.' … The plaintiff 'need only demonstrate that, with reasonable accommodations, [s]he could have performed the essential functions of h[er] job.'”
New Haven-based John R. Williams represented Presumey. He said the jury ”simply did not believe” the defense's story. “In my view, this case typifies the arrogance of some employers that write job descriptions which they really don't expect employees to follow but then use them as an excuse when they want to fire somebody,” he said.
Williams noted that Greenwich had claimed lifting, toileting and chasing students were essential functions of the job. “My client admittedly could not do those things, but in reality she was not the only Greenwich BOE employee with that problem. She was, however, the only one of color.”
The plaintiff subpoenaed a Caucasian woman with physical disabilities that prevented her from walking with ease. “She, however, was kept on in the very same job for which the plaintiff supposedly was unqualified,” Williams said. “She claimed in her testimony that she was perfectly capable of performing all of those functions, which was an insult to the jury, [who] could see that the woman had difficulty even walking up to the witness stand and could not raise her arm when asked to do so.
Williams called that point in the trial “one of those so-called Perry Mason moments we all dream about. So I think this case should send a message to employers that there really are rules they must follow just like regular citizens.”
Andrew M. McPherson of Goldstein & Peck in Bridgeport represented the board. He did not respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
Major Plaintiff Victories: Women's Health Care Gets Expensive in Court
6 minute readState High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1As Gen AI Acceptance Grows, Lawyers Race to Mitigate Risks
- 2Decisions Have 'Real-Life Consequences': Juvenile Court Judge Considered for Appellate Bench
- 3NY District Attorneys Ask for Level Funding Amid Statewide Drop in Violent Crime
- 4Texas Trial Boutique Matches Milbank Bonuses, Paying Up to $140K
- 5'Final Countdown': SEC Launches Nearly 800% Litigation Surge in October
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250