First of all, we should point out that the administrator claims she wasn’t even in the meeting and could not have said what the plaintiff alleges she said.  But by now you Loyal Daily Dawg Readers know how this works. When ruling on a Motion to Dismiss, the court is going to get the facts exclusively from the plaintiff and then determine if the facts as alleged amount to a viable lawsuit.

The plaintiff claims that a Galveston ISD administrator asked a job candidate in an interview: “How are you going to hide your blindness?  Or the kids will eat you alive.”  The court characterized this “stray remark” as “direct evidence” of discrimination based on disability.  Nevertheless, the court ruled in favor of GISD in the applicant’s  discrimination suit. How can that be?

The court compared the alleged question to asking someone to hide “their Jewishness, their Blackness or their gender—as if the things we cannot change about ourselves are inherently bad.” Since this was direct evidence of discrimination, it put the burden on the district to justify its decision not to hire the applicant as a classroom teacher.

The district satisfied that burden. The inappropriate remark got the job applicant to first base in her lawsuit, but that’s as far as she got.  GISD persuaded the court that the applicant was not “qualified” to be a classroom teacher.  Because the applicant was legally blind she could not see faces or facial expressions.  The court quoted some of her deposition testimony in which she was asked how she would know if a student had possession of a gun, or was engaged in sexual activity. The applicant said she would need a classroom aide to assist her.

That admission was fatal to her suit.  The court cited numerous previous cases that have held that getting another employee to help perform essential functions of the job is not a “reasonable” accommodation. Handling the classroom in an effective way is an essential function of the job, meaning that it’s something every teacher is expected to perform independently. 

The case illustrates 1) the importance of job descriptions laying out the “essential functions” of the job; 2) the need to know what a “reasonable” accommodation: is; and 3) the need to conduct job interviews in a manner that avoids “stray remarks” that could get the district in legal trouble.

It’s Kakoolaki v. Galveston ISD, decided by the federal court for the Southern District of Texas on September 27, 2024. It’s cited at 2024 WL 4336749.

DAWG BONE: STRAY REMARKS CAN BE COSTLY.

Got a question or comment for the Dawg?  Let me hear from you at jwalsh@wabsa.com. 

Tomorrow:  Moms for Liberty wins one….

Continue reading →