Klemme v. West Irondequoit Central School District
Filing
27
-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP- DECISION AND ORDER granting 16 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. (Clerk to close case.) Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 11/24/14. (JMC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________
LAURA KLEMME,
Plaintiff,
v.
DECISION
and ORDER
WEST IRONDEQUOIT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,
12-CV-6208
Defendant.
______________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Laura Klemme, (“plaintiff” or “Klemme”), a former
teacher employed by the defendant West Irondequoit Central School
District (“defendant” or “WICSD”), brings this action pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”) claiming
that the defendant discriminated against her on the basis of a
disability by denying her tenure and forcing her to resign her
position. Specifically, plaintiff claims that she was forced to
resign after she was denied reasonable accommodations for her known
disability in violation of the ADA.
Defendant denies plaintiff’s claims and moves pursuant to
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for summary
judgment against the plaintiff. Defendant contends that because it
had no knowledge of her disability, and did not perceive her as
disabled, she cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination
under the ADA. Defendant also contends that even if plaintiff had
made a prima facie case of disability discrimination, plaintiff was
denied tenure for non-pretextual, performance-related reasons.
For the reasons set forth below, I grant defendant’s motion
for summary judgment and dismiss the complaint.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from the plaintiff's complaint,
the deposition testimony of plaintiff and relevant WICSD personnel,
defendant's Local Rule 56(a) Statement of Facts, and the Court's
review of the entire record.
Plaintiff, an WICSD English teacher at Dake Junior High School
(“Dake”) from 2008 to 2011, suffers from “trigeminal neuralgia”
(“TN”), a condition which she alleges significantly impairs her
ability to work and to care for herself.
Although plaintiff was
absent from work several times during her three-year employment
with WICSD, it is undisputed that she was not diagnosed with TN
until late spring 2011.
During
plaintiff’s
first
year
at
Dake,
2008-2009,
her
supervisors were pleased with her performance, and Dake principal
Tim Terranova (“Terranova”) issued a letter in which he commended
her communication skills. By plaintiff’s second year however,
several issues with her performance began to develop. Plaintiff was
absent from work several days in December 2009 and May 2010 for
unspecified medical reasons, or “due to illness.” Her supervisors
were concerned about, among other things, her failure to adequately
Page -2-
communicate with the school and her colleagues regarding these
absences. On at least one occasion, plaintiff did not provide an
emergency lesson plan for an unexpected absence, a procedure which
was
required
to
be
followed
by
all
teachers.
She
also
had
difficulty completing assignments and being prepared.
In May 2010, Terranova rebuked plaintiff for failing to
complete assignments during a December 2009 hospitalization for
unspecified reasons, and she was forced to complete several hours
of
missed
work.
During
her
May
2010
evaluation
conference,
Terranova questioned plaintiff’s teaching skills and advised her
that “her tenure was in question.” Plaintiff’s performance-related
issues continued into her third year at Dake Junior High School.
Throughout the 2010-2011 year, Terranova and plaintiff’s curriculum
supervisor Vicki Derue (“Derue”) were critical of her classroom
performance and communication skills, and they conducted several
announced and unannounced classroom observations. Plaintiff was
also required to forward all of her lesson plans and handouts to a
colleague for oversight.
Plaintiff injured her shoulder in December 2010 and requested
an extension of her deadline to report test scores to accommodate
her daily physical therapy sessions. The request was denied, and
plaintiff did not ultimately attend physical therapy.
On another
occasion, when required to report data collected from students
performing a specific task, plaintiff falsely stated that two
Page -3-
students had been absent from school on the day she conducted the
assignment. In December 2010, plaintiff began requesting periodic
classroom breaks for taking pain medication and using the bathroom.
Her
requests
were
granted,
but
no
one
relieved
her
in
the
classroom.
That
year,
“disorganized
and
plaintiff
frequently
dependent”;
lacking
criticized
emotional
for:
being
maturity
and
adequate decision making skills, inappropriately communicating with
teachers and students; being reactive to feedback; and having
pacing
problems
in
the
classroom.
She
received
a
negative
performance review and negative performance critiques throughout
the year. In January 2011, plaintiff’s supervisors felt that a
recommendation for tenure was “in jeopardy,” and they placed her on
“an improvement plan.”
The improvement plan ended when plaintiff’s supervisors, Vicki
Derue and Matt Schrage, and Tim Terranova decided, based on her
inadequate performance, that she would not be recommended for
tenure. Plaintiff was first advised of this decision on March 29,
2011 at 3:00 P.M., and she was formally notified on March 31, 2011.
Plaintiff claims that her discriminatory treatment started
with the onset of her TN symptoms in January 2011, when she went to
an emergency room for an ear infection. A diagnosis of TN was not
made, however, until later that spring in 2011. Plaintiff testified
that she informed Vicki Derue about her condition, but she admitted
Page -4-
that neither she nor WICSD was aware that she suffered from TN
during the period in which the alleged discrimination had occurred:
“Q.
When were you first diagnosed with trigeminal
neuralgia?
A.
I don’t know...Well, it started exactly on
January 10[, 2011], when I was in the
emergency room and it took quite a long time
for them to figure out what it was. The actual
diagnosis was sometime following that spring.
...
Q.
And you don’t remember when?
A.
No.
...
Q.
Did you ever tell anyone at the district that
you were diagnosed with [TN]?
A.
I don’t remember. Yes, at some point.
Q.
Do you remember who?
A. No. In fact, wait, okay. I told Vicki Derue for
sure.
...
Q.
Would that have been before or after you
learned that you were not going to be
recommend[ed] for tenure?
A.
I don’t recall.
...
Q.
A.
You
filed
a
federal
court
complaint
alleging...that [WICSD] discriminated against
you based on a disability, right?
Right.
Q. What disabilities?
Page -5-
A.
Oh, [TN]. But at the time I did not know that
that’s what it was. Neither did they.
Q.
Any other disability?
A. No.”
Plaintiff’s deposition, pp. 30-31, 39.
Matt Schrage (“Schrage”) replaced Terranova as principal of
Dake in January 2011 and granted plaintiff’s request for flexible
work hours and extended deadlines. Despite testifying that she felt
“a backlash . . . from the administration” as a result of those
requests, plaintiff agreed, however, that it was not “because of
[her] condition” that Terranova had first questioned whether she
would be recommended for tenure in December 2010.
Plaintiff testified that she met with Vice Principal
Desrosiers
(“Desrosiers”)
in
January
2011
and
Dennis
“outlined
her
concerns about being discriminated against for illness.” She did
not mention TN to Desrosiers at any time, and he disputes that any
allegations
raised.
of
discrimination,
disability
or
otherwise,
were
It is undisputed that plaintiff was advised and counseled
about performance-related issues on several occasions over the
course of her three-year employment with WICSD. Plaintiff alleges,
however, that criticisms of her performance were a pretext for
discrimination against her based on her TN. Plaintiff does not
state that her illness interfered with her ability to perform in
the
classroom
or
communicate
with
colleagues.
Page -6-
parents,
students,
and
Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that she requested, or was
denied, reasonable accommodations related to TN specifically. In
fact, each instance listed in the complaint when plaintiff was ill,
absent from work, or hospitalized were unrelated to TN. Plaintiff
refers to being absent from work due only to “illness,” “medical
reasons,” an unspecified “hospitalization,” a “shoulder injury,”
and “an outer ear infection,” but does not assert that these
instances were related to her TN.
Vicki Derue testified that plaintiff was denied tenure because
she failed to demonstrate improvement after she was placed on the
plan
for
her
improvement,
particularly
with
respect
to
relationships with colleagues and her classroom performance.
was clear
her
It
at that time that plaintiff’s tenure was “in jeopardy.”
Derue denied that plaintiff’s medical issues or absences from work
were a factor in the denial of her tenure. Derue was not aware that
plaintiff suffered from TN, or any other disability, until after
the decision had been made.
Timothy
Terranova
similarly
testified
that
plaintiff was
denied tenure because she had made no improvement “in areas such as
decision
making,
communication
skills,
and
overall
executive
functioning.” Although plaintiff had made some improvement, it was
not to the level necessary for Terranova to recommend her for
tenure.
Page -7-
Terranova noted that, as early as her initial interview for
the teaching position in WICSD, a concern regarding plaintiff’s
communication skills was raised in a response reference from
another school district.
However, WICSD nonetheless decided to
give her a probationary position based on her other strengths.
Plaintiff never advised Terranova that she suffered from TN, and
she did not raise any claim of discrimination until shortly after
Terranova verbally informed her that she would not be recommended
for tenure. Even then, plaintiff did not identify or reveal any
medical reasons as the basis for her discrimination claim.
Matt
Schrage
testified
that
he
addressed
concerns
about
plaintiff’s work performance with her on several occasions. In a
letter dated March 31, 2011, Schrage formally notified plaintiff
that she would not be recommended for tenure. Schrage, unaware that
plaintiff suffered from TN, or any other disability, testified:
“Q.
I believe you testified to this before, but just to
make the record clear, at any point in time before
March 31. 2011, when [plaintiff] was formally
denied tenure, were you aware that she suffered
from a condition called trigeminal neuralgia?
...
A.
Not to my recollection, no. Not prior to that date.
Q.
Were you aware that she suffered from any form of
disability prior to March 31, 2011, when she was
formally advised that she was denied tenure?
...
A.
Disability, no.”
Page -8-
Schrage deposition, pp. 58-59.
DISCUSSION
I.
Standard for Motion for Summary Judgment
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
“[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
Once the movant has met this burden, the burden shifts to the
nonmovant
who
must
“come
forward
with
evidence
to
allow
a
reasonable jury to find in his favor.” Lizardo v. Denny's, Inc., 270
F.3d 94, 101 (2d Cir.2001); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S.
317,
325–27
(1986).
The
court
must
draw
all
factual
inferences, and view the factual assertions in materials such as
affidavits, exhibits, and depositions in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. However, a
nonmovant benefits from such factual inferences “only if there is
a ‘genuine’ dispute as to those facts.” Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S.
372, 380 (2007), quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
II.
Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of
disability discrimination.
The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals
with
a
disability
with
respect
to
conditions
of
employment
including hiring, advancement, discharge and compensation. See 42
Page -9-
U.S.C.A. § 12112(a) (1995).
To state a prima facie case of
discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that
(1) she is a handicapped person within the meaning of the ADA;
(2) she is otherwise qualified to perform the duties of her former
job; (3) adverse employment action was taken against her because of
her
handicap;
and
(4)
her
employer
is
subject
to
the
anti-
discrimination provisions of the ADA. See Joyce v. Suffolk County,
911 F.Supp. 92, 94 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (citations omitted).
With respect to the third prong, at a minimum, “‘an employer
cannot be liable under the ADA for firing an employee when it
indisputably had no knowledge of the disability . . .[A]n employer
cannot fire an employee because of a disability unless it knows of
the disability.’” Morisky v. Broward Cnty., 80 F.3d 445, 448 (11th
Cir. 1996), quoting Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc.,
47 F.3d 928, 932 (7th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted);
see also O'Keefe v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 714 F.Supp. 622
(N.D.N.Y.1989)(employer unaware of plaintiff’s disability did not
discharge plaintiff because of disability).
Therefore, a plaintiff’s ADA discrimination claim must be
dismissed
where
defendant
had
no
knowledge
of
plaintiff’s
disability. See Thomsen v. Stantec, Inc., 785 F.Supp.2d 20, 23
(W.D.N.Y. 2011) aff'd, 483 F.Appx 620 (2d Cir. 2012).
Here, there is no question that WICSD was not notified of
plaintiff’s
TN
prior
to
denying
Page -10-
her
tenure.
Plaintiff
never
notified the district that she was disabled because of TN. Although
plaintiff argues that WICSD “regarded” her as disabled, the sole
evidence she cites in support of this claim, comments made about
her status as a single mother, fall “woefully short of a sufficient
basis upon which a reasonable jury might conclude” that WICSD
perceived plaintiff as disabled. See Thomsen, 785 F.Supp.2d at 23.
A.
Denial of Reasonable Accommodations because of a
disability.
medical
Plaintiff specifically contends that WICSD failed to provide
her with reasonable accommodations for her TN, which include
extending deadlines and classroom breaks. WICSD responds that there
is no evidence that it was aware of plaintiff’s disability at any
time
before
the
decision
was
made
denying
plaintiff
tenure.
Although plaintiff asserts that several witnesses are willing to
testify that she suffers from a medical disability, which, although
not diagnosed, “was discussed several times” prior to March 31,
2011, she submitted no affidavits, deposition testimony, or medical
records to
dispute WICSD’s evidence that they had no notice of
plaintiff’s TN.
It is well settled that
“[f]or a plaintiff who can perform a . . . position with
a reasonable accommodation to establish a prima facie
case of discrimination because of disability, she must
show (1) that she is an individual who has a disability
within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that an employer
covered by the statute had notice of her disability, (3)
that with reasonable accommodation, she could perform the
essential functions of the position sought, and (4) that
the employer has refused to make such accommodations.”
Page -11-
Lovejoy-Wilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel, Inc., 263 F.3d 208,
216 (2d Cir. 2001) (emphasis added); see also Givens v.
Monroe Cnty., No. 11-CV-6592, 2014 WL 4794641, at *3
(W.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2014).
Although plaintiff was hired in 2008 and her employment was
terminated in April 2011, it is undisputed that she did not inform
WICSD of her TN until after she was advised that she would not be
recommended for tenure. Indeed, plaintiff herself was admittedly
unaware that she suffered from TN, and she testified that WICSD was
likewise unaware of her illness, even if symptoms had emerged in
January 2011.
Accordingly, as WICSD did not know, or have reasonable cause
to perceive, that plaintiff suffered from a disabling condition,
WICSD’s motion for summary judgment must be granted. See Thomsen,
785 F.Supp.2d at 23; Graves v. Finch Prawn & Co., 457 F.3d 181, 184
(2d Cir. 2006)(employee is responsible for making employer aware of
disability and need for accommodation).
III.
Retaliation under the ADA.
This Court’s conclusion that plaintiff failed to establish
that WICSD had notice of her disability renders her retaliation
claim untenable. Even assuming, arguendo, that WICSD “regarded”
plaintiff as disabled and being “substantially limited in” her
ability to work, there is no evidence that she was subjected to
retaliation for requesting accommodations. It is undisputed that
WICSD
granted
plaintiff’s
requests
for
classroom
breaks
and
flexible morning work hours. Moreover, there is ample proof in the
Page -12-
record that plaintiff was placed on a teacher improvement plan and
ultimately denied tenure for performance-related reasons, not as a
pretext for discrimination because of a perceived disability.
The
temporal proximity between plaintiff’s medical absences and her
negative performance evaluations is insufficient to demonstrate
that WICSD’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions
was pretextual. See Thomsen, 785 F.Supp.2d at 25.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I find that plaintiff has
failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA.
Accordingly, I grant defendant’s motion for summary judgement
dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
S/ Michael A. Telesca
____________________________
Michael A. Telesca
United States District Judge
DATED:
Rochester, New York
November 24, 2014
Page -13-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?