During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw a number of federal court decisions involving disability discrimination claims from teachers who requested full-time remote work as an accommodation for compromised immune systems or other medical conditions. In almost all of these cases, the courts determined that the ability to interact in person with students is an essential function of the teaching profession. Last week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Georgia) continued this trend, finding that a teacher who was unable to physically interact with children was not a qualified individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In McNeal v. Macon Co. Board of Ed., the plaintiff suffered from a spinal condition that prevented her from lifting weights or physically restraining students. In her role as a special education teacher, she requested use of two paraprofessional employees to assist her with physical tasks associated with her duties. The school denied use of the second assistant employee, and the plaintiff later alleged that she was injured during interactions with a student. She requested a leave of absence and was terminated following her inability to return within a designated period of time. She sued, alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADA.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the school district. The court noted that the plaintiff was not a qualified individual under the ADA because she could not physically interact with students, which was an essential function of her job. The request for assistants would have resulted in the school reallocating these essential functions, which is beyond the scope of the ADA. Because her requested medical leave was indefinite, it was not a required ADA accommodation.
When it comes to teachers, federal courts appear to recognize the negative impact of some requested accommodations on students and the learning process. Close interaction with students has been found to constitute an essential function of the job. Teachers unable to perform these functions due to medical conditions will generally not be considered qualified protected individuals under the ADA.
[View source.]
