• A Message from the Committee Chair:
  Carolyn Herbst
• Legal Issues:
  Job Description Trumps Accommodation for R.I. Teacher
• Teaching Disability Awareness in the Classroom
• A Message from
  UFT Liaison: Eugene Rubin
• Committee
  Photo Album
• 

Legal Issues:

Job Description Trumps Accomodation
for R.I. Teacher

A Providence, R.I., teacher sued her employer alleging discrimination for not accommodating her disability. That would have been a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The teacher claimed she had cervical spine and neck injuries that interfered with her ability to stand, sit, stoop and lift. She charged that the Providence school board ignored her accommodation requests to arrive at work a half hour late and to provide a full-time teacher’s aide.

The school district was able to prevail in court by having a “comprehensive and explicit” job description including time to report to work, thus showing that the request for accommodation was unreasonable and would change the essential functions of the job of a teacher. The lawsuit is known as Francis v. Providence School Board and was decided by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, as reported in the Disability Compliance Bulletin, Oct. 12, 2006.

Several lessons can be drawn from this case. First, what was the reason for the teacher’s request to report 30 minutes late to work? Was it due to her fear of being manhandled by entering students or that she couldn’t work a full day? The court found this request unreasonable because an important function of the job was to cover first period home room daily and be available to students early in the day. Moreover, the teacher was given a nearby parking spot, a locked drawer to stow her materials and the availability of a custodian to assist with lifting heavy objects. The court further determined that the teacher did not suffer from a disability; therefore, no fault was found with how her employer treated her.

Another important lesson is a caution for employees: Don’t damage your own case. In this case, the court indicated that the teacher told the school district that, in her last few months at the school, she was able to arrive at the required time in the morning and she was also able to work without a teacher’s aide. This statement undermined her case. “Try not to talk to the employer representatives without proper union and/or legal representation,” warned Claude Hersh, Associate General Counsel for NYSUT. However, there may be circumstances when an employee cannot refuse to answer questions by the employer.

There was also a lesson for employers, that all employees should note: As the Disability Compliance Bulletin article noted, employers are warned to not term a change in an employee’s working conditions as an “accommodation” if that employee arguably is not disabled under the definitions in the ADA. Calling it an accommodation might provide an employee with more evidence in support of his or her claim.

When the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case in favor of the employer, the Providence School Board (the legal citation is 33 NDLR 107 (1st Cir. 2006)), it was a bitter defeat for the teacher.

Next page

Carolyn Herbst, Committee Chairperson • Abbe Nosoff, Editor/Writer • Eugene Rubin, UFT Committee Liaison