?Takeaway: An applicant for a position as a special education aide who was rejected after she failed a physical exam could bring her disability bias claim to trial where she showed that the school district regarded her as disabled and that she could perform the essential duties of the position.
?An applicant for a job as a full-time special education aide who was rejected for the position after she failed a physical exam could go forward with her disability bias claim against the school district, a California appeals court ruled.
The aide had sufficiently shown that the school district regarded her as disabled, that she could perform the essential duties of the position, and that the school district’s asserted reason for denying her the position was a pretext for discrimination, the court said.
The aide suffered a serious stroke in 2003 that initially left her paralyzed. After years of treatment, she relearned how to speak, stand, and walk, yet she did not fully recover. She suffered some permanent paralysis, which limited her ability to walk and the use of her left foot.
The aide first worked part-time for the school district in 2006 as a substitute para-educator for special needs students. She again worked for the school district on a part-time basis in 2007, 2013, and 2018. She was not required to take a physical examination for the part-time positions.
In 2018, the aide applied and interviewed for a full-time position as an instructional assistant for special needs students. She was offered the position conditioned on certain screening procedures, including passing a physical examination, which is required for all new full-time hires at the school district.
An independent physician’s office conducted the aide’s physical examination. The physician’s assistant who administered the exam prepared a report, stating that the aide had failed because she had a balance deficit and a strength deficit in her right leg and so could not perform the physical requirements of the job.
The school district rescinded the job offer, terminated the aide as a substitute and disqualified her from any future employment. She then sued the school district for disability discrimination, among other claims. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit before trial, and the aide appealed.
Proving Disability Discrimination
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits an employer from refusing to hire an applicant based on the applicant’s actual or perceived physical disability. The applicant must first show that she suffers from a disability or is regarded as suffering from a disability and that she can perform the essential duties of a job with or without reasonable accommodation. The employer must assert a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, and the applicant is then required to show that the asserted reason is a pretext for discrimination.
The appeals court first noted that a jury could reasonably find that the school district regarded the aide as disabled, based on its conclusion that she was not medically suitable for the position for which she was applying.
The court further found that a jury could also conclude that the aide could perform the essential functions of the position she was offered. The school district argued that the aide could not perform the essential functions of the job because her physical limitations made it difficult for her to run after students. Even if the aide were unable to run after students, the school district had not established that this was an essential function of a full-time instructional assistant, the court said.
The part-time and full-time instructional assistant positions have the same duties and responsibilities. As a part-time instructional assistant, the aide had been assigned to a one-on-one position with a student who tended to run away, and she successfully performed that position before being offered the full-time position, the court noted.
When the aide told the school district that her student habitually ran out of the classroom, the district told her to try to keep the student on task and redirect her behavior. If she could not catch the student when she ran away, she notified security, who would monitor the student until the aide caught up with her.
Therefore, the court said, the school district had not shown that running after students is an essential function of a full-time instructional assistant.
Moreover, the court said, the evidence shows that the aide could have been placed in a setting where students do not require any physical assistance or physical supervision.
Assuming then that the school district showed that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for rescinding the aide’s job offer – that she failed the physical examination—the aide introduced evidence that the school district’s reason was a pretext for discrimination. The aide was told that she was “a liability” at least four times during the meeting at which her job offer was rescinded. This is evidence of a discriminatory animus toward the aide, the court said.
The court ruled that the aide could take her disability bias claim to trial.
Price v. Victor Valley Union High School District, Calif. Ct. App., No. E076784 (Nov. 9, 2022).
Joanne Deschenaux, J.D., is a freelance writer in Annapolis, Md.
