The Hard Truth for Teachers
Teachers, COVID-19, and Accommodations in the Classroom
When we were young children, teachers were something more than other mere adults in our lives. They were heroes, they were authority, and they seemed almost impervious.
However, as we became an adult, we realized they are mortals with the same human limitations as other adults. Teachers develop heart problems, they develop diabetes, and they develop other limitations. Currently, many teachers are approaching a cliff where they are facing significant risks while many school districts are planning a partial or complete return in the fall.
Some teachers in high-risk categories are understandably afraid to return regardless of how much they miss their students. I have seen many people question whether teachers in high-risk categories will need to return to class. In many cases, it seems inevitable that teachers will have little option but to return to the classroom if called to duty.
The American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) demands that certain accommodations are made for employees with qualifying disabilities. However, the law requires that these accommodations are “reasonable” and do not place an “undue burden” on the employer. Although an employee may have a recognized disability, she is not entitled to any accommodation she might request.
First, regarding the COVID-19 high-risk categories, “age” is not a disability. Therefore, a teacher could likely not request an accommodation under the ADA even though age places the teacher at a high risk.
Further, although disabilities and certain heart problems are disabilities under the ADA, this does not mean that a court would determine that an employer would need to agree to an accommodation requesting to at-home teaching in a district returning to in-person classes.
In Johnson v. Cleveland City School District, which is a 6th Circuit case, a teacher sued her district for terminating her under the ADA. The teacher suffered injuries in her spine with severe symptoms. Initially, the district provided the teacher with numerous accommodations and continued to assign her to classroom work. The teacher’s physician then updated her disability records and argued that the teacher could no longer verbally control unruly students. The teacher then refused any classroom assignments because of her disability. The teacher lost her claims against her district. The court determined that the ability to verbally control unruly students was an “essential function” of teaching. The court further held that the district was not required to provide the teacher’s preferred accommodation, but it had the right to provide other alternative accommodations.
The question today is whether a court would consider in-person teaching a contemporary “essential function” of teaching in a district holding in-person classes. If Johnson v. Cleveland City School District provides any guidance, it seems a court would likely deem a teacher’s presence in the class as essential. This is a hard truth that our teachers are facing at the edge of this cliff.
However, it is important to note that just because a teacher is not entitled to any accommodations she requests, this does not mean that she is entitled to no accommodation at all. In my practice, I see too many employees go it alone. They decide what they want and will not budge, or they mistakenly believe their doctors have the authority to order their employers to follow the “doctor’s orders.”
To reverse quote the Mandalorian, “this is not the way.”
Employees should view requests for accommodations as negotiations — not as demands. If an employee, such as a teacher, has health conditions requiring some accommodation, the employee should consider the help of an experienced employment attorney to assist with her requests for an accommodation. “This is the way.”
By
Matt Miller-Novak, Esq.
Barron Peck Bennie & Schlemmer Co., LPA