Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCHARGE—S.D. Ohio: Teacher, twice assaulted by students, raises genuine fact issues concerning alleged ‘resignation’, (Dec 12, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

There were questions concerning whether her employer had a policy of not pursing criminal charges against students, a path the teacher wanted to pursue following both assaults.

Denying summary judgment against a teacher’s claims for FMLA interference, retaliation, and violations of state public policy, a federal district court in Ohio determined there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the teacher chose to resign following a second assault perpetrated by a student. After both assaults occurred, the teacher was adamant about pressing charges, an approach that went against her employer’s alleged policy, thus giving the employer a vested interest in her resignation, which the teacher purportedly refused to do. However, the court did grant summary judgment against her ADA discrimination and failure to accommodate claims because she could not show that a concussion diagnosis following the first assault was enough to limit a major life activity (Harris v. The Children’s Home of Cincinnati, No. 1:21-cv-00417 (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 11, 2025)).

The Children’s Home of Cincinnati (TCH) is a non-profit that provides mental health and behavioral health counseling to adolescents. Students who attend class there have been removed from traditional schools in their districts. The plaintiff in this case began her employment in July 2018 as a day treatment intervention specialist. Her position involved the teaching of the traditional education portion of each school day to two separate groups of students.

First assault. In August 2018, the teacher noticed a student looking at inappropriate sites on his Chromebook. After asking him to “close it,” he threw the Chromebook on the floor and hit her in the face with a computer mouse. After seeking treatment for her injuries, she was diagnosed with a concussion.

Despite being told that TCH does not file charges against students, the teacher reported the incident to police, who investigated, which eventually led to a formal proceeding.

Employment contract. TCH offered the teacher a second contract—effective August 1 through July 31 for the 2019-2020 school year—as a lead mentor intervention specialist, which she accepted.

Second assault. On November 19, 2019, one of the teacher’s students “was having a challenging day.” The teacher and other students left the classroom so a different staff member, better suited to handling outbursts, could take over. While in the hallway, the teacher was allegedly struck in the back of the head with a backpack. The teacher reported the incident to her immediate supervisor and was referred by a TCH client rights officer to same urgent care she had visited following the previous assault.

Upon returning to work the next day, the teacher again met with the client rights officer and at least one police officer. The teacher asked for an incident report and expressed her desire to file charges against the student. The client rights officer and the police agreed that there was not enough evident to pursue formal charges.

Conclusion of employment. Later that same day, the teacher met with TCH’s chief administrative officer (CAO). She described the incident in detail and stated that she was still suffering from a headache. She explained that her current injury had exacerbated her post-concussion symptoms.

According to the teacher, the CAO brought up the possibility of her resignation, on the premise that “[TCH] can’t afford to have teachers who file charges against students when an assault happens.” However, according to the CAO, the teacher allegedly told him that she wanted out of her contract following the second assault. He allegedly gave her the option of ending her employment either around Thanksgiving or Christmas and denied ever talking with her about pursing criminal charges against students.

The teacher worked on Thursday, November 21, but not on that Friday, as she was purportedly sick from her head injury. That Saturday, she sent an email to TCH’s CEO, explaining that she did not want to resign as requested. She also stated that she had obtained legal representation and was requesting notification of when she would be allowed to return to work. On Monday, the CAO responded to the email, stating that “…it appears you have had a change of heart and would like to continue your employment. As such, you are welcome and expected to return,” and that at no time had he asked her to resign.

In response, the teacher asked that all communications go through her legal representatives. That afternoon, the client rights officer sent an email that stated TCH was formally accepting the teacher’s intent to resign, deeming November 27 as the effective resignation date.

Leave request. Approximately two hours after the missive from the client rights officer, a doctor’s letter was faxed to TCH stating that the teacher had sustained a closed head injury while at work and recommended that she adhere to complete brain rest for at least two weeks.

Lawsuit. Subsequently, the teacher filed this lawsuit alleging violations of the ADA and the FMLA. She also alleged that her termination—for reporting acts of assault on school property—was in violation of Ohio public policy. The court addressed the claims in reverse order.

Public policy. Ohio law makes it a fifth-degree felony to assault a teacher on school property and imposes criminal liability on any person who fails to report a crime to law enforcement. One of the elements necessary to establish a claim for wrongful termination in violation of Ohio public policy is that the dismissal was motivated by conduct related to the public policy. TCH submitted no evidence on this causation element, contending that the teacher suffered no adverse employment action following the August 2018 incident and had resigned following the November 2019 incident. The court did not agree.

Although it was true the teacher was rehired—and evidently promoted—after the August 2018 assault, the fact that she pressed charges was an articulated concern by TCH management in the aftermath of the November 2019 incident, with emails between TCH managers asking whether the teacher intended to file charges.

This was a threshold dispute, said the court. Did the teacher express an interest in being released from her contract so that she could resign? Or, consistent with its policy of not charging students, did TCH engineer a resignation to avoid terminating the teacher outright? Denials by TCH managers that any such policy exists only add to the mix of material facts that must be sorted out by a jury, explained the court. Accordingly, summary judgment against this claim was denied.

FMLA. Turning to the teacher’s claim for FMLA interference, TCH argued that the teacher was no longer an employee at the time she requested leave. The CAO formally “accepted” her resignation nearly two hours before her leave request—in the form of a doctor’s note—was faxed to TCH.

Here, the court again noted that whether the teacher resigned or whether TCH concocted a false narrative concerning the purported resignation was very much in dispute. Moreover, TCH specified that the teacher’s resignation would be effective on Wednesday, November 27, two days later.

TCH insisted that the record was replete with contemporaneous evidence memorializing the teacher’s request to resign. However, the court noted that the “record” to which TCH referred were emails authored by managers with an arguably vested interest in having the teacher resign. In contrast, the only email authored by the teacher that was part of the record stated that she would not resign “as requested.” Given these material disputes of fact, the court denied TCH’s motion for summary judgment against this claim.

ADA discrimination. Next, the court addressed the teacher’s claim for ADA discrimination. The teacher had testified that she suffered from head injuries sustained in the two assaults, symptomized by headaches, memory loss, dizziness, problems sleeping, and emotional/psychological “difficulty.” However, when asked to elaborate she could not proffer any specifics. She was equally vague when asked to describe how her injuries limited her activities.

At best, the teacher had established “difficulties” attributable to her head injuries, observed the court. However, “difficulties” are not the equivalent of a disability. There was no evidence the teacher requested leave or an accommodation following the August 2018 assault nor was there any testimony that the concussion she suffered then limited any of her major life activities. Further, after the 2019 incident, a doctor recommended complete brain rest for at least two weeks. A recommendation for a brief, finite absence from work is not enough evidence for a jury to find that the teacher was disabled, explained the court. As such, summary judgment was granted against this claim.

Retaliation. As to the teacher’s claim for ADA retaliation, she had alleged that she requested a leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation. TCH contended that an employee who voluntarily resigns cannot claim that she suffered an adverse employment action. However, the court reiterated that whether the teacher in fact voluntarily resigned was a disputed issue of material fact. Accordingly, summary judgment was denied as to this claim.

Failure to accommodate. Finally, with regard to the teacher’s claim for failure to accommodate, the court found summary judgment was appropriate on this claim as the teacher had failed to establish that she suffered from a disability as defined by the ADA.

The case is No. 1:21-cv-00417.

Judge: Barrett, M.

Attorneys: Brian Joseph Butler (The Butler Trial Firm) for Sandra Harris. Roula Allouch (Bricker Graydon) for Children's Home of Cincinnati.

Companies: Children's Home of Cincinnati

Cases: Discharge Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination EmployeeLeave Retaliation StateLawClaims OhioNews