Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—5th Cir.: Legally blind applicant for teaching position was not ‘qualified individual’, (Apr 7, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

By her own admission, the appeals court found, the applicant could not, by herself, directly supervise students.

A legally blind applicant for a teaching position with the Galveston Independent School District was not a qualified individual under the ADA, and thus the district did not violate the statute when it failed to hire her, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished opinion. Although the applicant requested a full-time classroom aide and assistance from neighboring hallway teachers to help alert her to non-audible behavioral violations, direct supervision of middle school students—both in classroom and during passing periods—is an essential function of this particular teaching position. Her accommodation requests would thus amount to a reassignment of a teacher’s primary responsibility to monitor student behavior and were unreasonable as a matter of law, the appeals court found (Kakoolaki v. Galveston Independent School District, No. 24-40710 (5th Cir. Apr. 2, 2025, unpublished)).

Legally blind. The plaintiff has cone dystrophy, rendering her legally blind. Although she can make out silhouettes, she cannot identify faces or facial expressions, and she cannot see standard print, though she can read extremely magnified text on a screen.

Contingent offer for sixth-grade teaching position. In July 2021, she participated virtually in three interviews for the sixth-grade social-studies teaching position. An instructional specialist at the school extended her a contingent offer at the end of the first.

Notice of visual impairment. Hours later, the applicant sent an email to inform the instructional specialist of her visual impairment. In that email, she assured the latter that her disability “has no effect at all on [her] ability to perform the essential duties of the job.” And she welcomed the opportunity to answer “any questions at all about how [her visual impairment] will impact [her] ability to” teach.

Second and third interviews. The instructional specialist invited her to a second interview the following week, and the applicant addressed the limitations associated with her disability in that interview.

Her third interview was conducted like a “lecture.” The instructional specialist and the principal of the school where the position was located “went over classroom expectations” with her. They covered the job description, which was accessible to the applicant before she applied, and the contents of several documents describing “the functions of the job.” Teachers at the school, for instance, are responsible for “[m]anag[ing] student behavior in accordance with Student Code of Conduct and student handbook” and “[t]ak[ing] all necessary and reasonable precautions to protect students, equipment, materials, and facilities.”

Could not see the information. At the end of the interview, the applicant told her interviewers that she could not see the information from which they were reading, despite it being shared on her screen, but that she would “like to be able to review it.” The instructional specialist, in turn, emailed her the materials after the interview.

Accommodation requests. On July 26, the applicant responded to the instructional specialist’s email. She restated her belief that that she could “effectively perform all of the essential functions” required of the job. And in order to perform those essential functions, she requested several accommodations. Only two of those accommodations were relevant on appeal: providing her a full-time classroom aide and reassigning her hallway supervision duties to other teachers.

Offered to another candidate. The next day, the applicant received an email from the principal notifying her that the “position was offered to another candidate.”

Lawsuit and appeal. After exhausting her remedies before the EEOC, the applicant sued, alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate in violation of the ADA. A federal district court granted summary judgment for the school district, and she appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

Essential functions. Affirming, the appeals court found no genuine fact issue that a reasonable accommodation would have enabled her to perform the essential functions of the sixth-grade teaching position. As the district court noted, “[The applicant] cannot determine what exactly students are doing in the classroom.” She also testified that, in a classroom setting, she would be unable to determine whether a student possesses a weapon, is engaged in sexual activity, is looking at a mobile phone, is cheating, or “is otherwise misbehaving.” Thus, by her own admission, she could not, by herself, directly supervise the students.

Nor were the two accommodations she proposed reasonable. She requested a full-time classroom aide and assistance from neighboring hallway teachers to help alert her to non-audible behavioral violations, but to grant either request would “amount to a reassignment of a teacher’s primary responsibility to monitor student behavior,” the Fifth Circuit found, and as a matter of law, those requests are unreasonable. The ADA “does not require an employer to relieve an employee of any essential functions of his or her job, modify those duties, reassign existing employees to perform those jobs, or hire new employees to do so.”

The case is No. 24-40710.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: Dorian Vandenberg-Rodes (Shellist Lazarz Slobin) for Suzonne Kakoolaki. Stephanie Anne Hamm (Thompson & Horton) for Galveston Independent School District.

Companies: Galveston Independent School District

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination PublicEmployees LouisianaNews MississippiNews TexasNews