Tag: Circuit

  • Teacher with PTSD entitled to accommodation under ADA, 2nd Circuit says

    Teacher with PTSD entitled to accommodation under ADA, 2nd Circuit says

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • A high school math teacher with post-traumatic stress disorder was entitled to a 15-minute break as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act even if she didn’t need one to perform her job’s essential functions, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held March 25 in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District.
    • The high school math teacher in New York sued her school district under the ADA for failing to accommodate her PTSD, according to court documents. She claimed the school district refused to guarantee her a 15-minute break every afternoon during the 2019-2020 school year. She said she used the breaks to compose herself away from the workplace, which tended to trigger her symptoms.
    • The teacher acknowledged that even without the breaks, she could perform her job’s essential functions, albeit “under great duress and harm.” On that basis, the district court found she had no failure-to-accommodate claim and granted summary judgment against her. The 2nd Circuit vacated the ruling and sent the case back for reconsideration.

    Dive Insight:

    Prohibited discrimination under the ADA includes, absent undue hardship to the employer, “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability,” the 2nd Circuit explained, quoting the statute.

    In turn, the ADA defines a “qualified individual” as “an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions” of their job, the appeals court pointed out.

    The district court, relying on this wording, incorrectly inferred that an employee who can perform the job’s essential functions without an accommodation does not, as a matter of law, have a claim for failure to accommodate, the panel said.

    But “a straightforward reading of the ADA confirms that an employee may qualify for a reasonable accommodation even if she can perform the essential functions of her job” without an accommodation, the 2nd Circuit emphasized.

    In other words, “accommodations that are not strictly necessary for an employee’s performance of essential functions may still be reasonable and therefore required by the ADA,” the court held.

    The 2nd Circuit, which covers Connecticut, New York and Vermont, noted that most of the other federal circuit courts of appeal have made similar rulings.

    Relevant to the teacher’s case, the ADA defines reasonable accommodation to include job restructuring or modifying an employee’s schedule, the 2nd Circuit said. A modified schedule may involve adjusting arrival or departure times or providing periodic breaks, according to a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance.

    For instance, the EEOC announced last week that a construction supply company agreed to pay $150,000 to settle allegations it failed to provide a diabetic worker with requested snack breaks throughout the day to regulate his blood sugar.

    Reasonable accommodations also include allowing an employee to use accrued paid leave and providing unpaid leave, the EEOC guidance states.

    However, the “reasonableness” of a requested accommodation is a fact-specific question, the 2nd Circuit explained.

    On remand, the school district might demonstrate that the teacher’s request for a break while assigned to afternoon study hall was unreasonable and imposed an undue hardship, the court pointed out.

    At the same time, the teacher’s long history of receiving her requested accommodation and the school district’s evolving policies indicated that her request may have been reasonable, notwithstanding that she performed her essential functions without it, the 2nd Circuit noted.

    Court documents reflected that in 2008, the teacher sought and received permission to take one 15-minute break during each of her morning and afternoon “prep periods,” when she wasn’t responsible for overseeing students.

    In 2016, the school district indicated she needed to submit additional documentation to support her request. Rather than doing so, the teacher took paid sick leave and then leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, according to court records.

    When she returned from FMLA leave in 2017, and throughout the 2018-2019 school year, she was allowed to take a morning and afternoon break when a school librarian could watch the students.

    At issue here were the afternoon breaks the following year that she wasn’t guaranteed (but took anyway) when the librarian or another employee wasn’t to cover for her, court records reflected.

    Source link

  • VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

    VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

    SAN FRANCISCO, March 10, 2025 — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Lars Jensen, a math professor unconstitutionally punished for criticizing what he believed was his college’s decision to water down its math standards.

    Reversing a federal district court, the Ninth Circuit held Jensen suffered wrongful dismissal of his claims against Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno, Nevada, and that he should have his day in court to prove college administrators violated his First Amendment rights. The court also held Jensen’s right to speak out about the math standards was so clearly established that the administrators were not entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.

    “This decision is a major victory for the free speech rights of academics,” said Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney Daniel Ortner, who argued the case before a Ninth Circuit panel in November 2024. “This decision will protect professors from investigation or threats of termination for their speech, and promote accountability for administrators who violate the First Amendment.”

    The dispute began in 2020, when Jensen planned to comment at a TMCC conference about what he perceived to be diminishing academic standards at the college. After administrators prohibited Jensen from sharing his views at a Q&A session, he printed out his planned comments critiquing the college for allowing for “a student graduating from college” while only being “ready for middle school math,” and handed them out to his colleagues during the break. TMCC Dean Julie Ellsworth told Jensen not to circulate his fliers during the break, but he continued to do so without interrupting the session.

    Ellsworth then accused Jensen of “disobeying” her and warned him he had “made an error” defying her. Following through on her veiled threats, Ellsworth sent Jensen an official reprimand. Over the next two performance reviews, Jensen’s department chair suggested he receive an “excellent” rating, but Ellsworth retaliated by giving him “unsatisfactory” ratings for “insubordination.” As a result, Jensen automatically had to undergo review for possible termination.

    “The college’s actions tarnished my reputation and chilled my speech,” said Jensen. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision vindicates my First Amendment rights and allows me to have my day in court.” 

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF PROFESSOR JENSEN AND HIS ATTORNEYS

    TMCC might have fired Jensen if not for the speedy intervention of FIRE, which wrote a letter objecting that the administrators were violating the First Amendment, which protects faculty at public colleges in commenting as citizens on matters of public concern. TMCC announced that Jensen would not be fired, but the damage to his First Amendment rights was already done, especially with the negative performance evaluations remaining on his file.

    Jensen sued Ellsworth and other TMCC administrators in 2022, arguing the college’s retaliatory actions violated his First Amendment rights as well as his right to due process and equal protection. A district court dismissed the case in 2023. 

    The Ninth Circuit ruled today that the district court erred in dismissing Jensen’s First Amendment claim, because his speech about the college’s academic standards involved a matter of public concern related to scholarship or teaching, and thus receives First Amendment protection. 

    The Court also held the university’s retaliatory actions were likely to chill Jensen’s speech, and that a university’s “interest in punishing a disobedient employee for speaking in violation of their supervisor’s orders cannot automatically trump the employee’s interest in speaking.” The Court warned, in fact, that if an employer could fire an employee solely for refusing to obey an order to stop speaking, a university could unconstitutionally enjoy “carte blanche to stifle legitimate speech.”

    The Court further held the district court erred when it held that claims against the college administrators were barred by qualified immunity, a doctrine that requires plaintiffs to show a government official violated their “clearly established right” before they can hold those officials accountable for damages. The Ninth Circuit held that at the time Jensen spoke out, “it was clearly established that a professor has a right to speak about a school’s curriculum without being reprimanded, given negative performance reviews, and put through an investigation and termination hearing.”

    The ruling remands the case back to the District Court of Nevada, where Jensen’s First Amendment claims can proceed. He may also choose to amend his other claims as necessary to proceed alongside them. Jensen is also represented by Nevada attorney John Nolan, who brought the lawsuit and wrote the briefs filed with the Ninth Circuit. 

     

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

    Source link