Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Md.: Teacher allegedly perceived as drug addict, fired after certificate expired, not entitled to ‘cat’s paw’ theory, (Nov 12, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

While she plausibly alleged that the principal harbored discriminatory animus based on the false belief that she still used drugs following rehab, the facts did not suggest the principal “exercised authority” over her termination.

An elementary school teacher, who claimed she faced harassment and unfair treatment by a school principal who incorrectly believed she still used illegal drugs following her completion of an inpatient drug rehabilitation program, and who was terminated after she allowed her teacher’s certification to expire, failed to state a plausible claim of wrongful discharge under the Rehab Act, since the facts she alleged did not suggest the public school system perceived her as disabled, nor did they allow the “cat’s paw” theory of liability to apply. A federal court in Maryland also dismissed without prejudice her procedural due process claim, concluding that she had no legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment once her teacher’s certificate expired (Moody v. The Board of Education of Wicomico County, No. SAG-25-00642 (D. Md. Nov. 7, 2025)).

Recovered drug addict. The teacher began working for the Board of Education of Wicomico County, Maryland (the BOE) in 2008. In late 2019, she suffered a mental health crisis and began using drugs. In January 2020, she took FMLA leave to attend an inpatient drug treatment rehabilitation program, which she successfully completed.

Assigned to different school. In August 2021, the BOE assigned her to teach kindergarten at a different school than she had worked at in the past. The school’s principal grew up in the same town as the teacher and had learned that she attended drug treatment in 2020.

Principal’s harassment. The teacher claimed the principal made repeated references to her struggles with addiction and suggested she was still using drugs. For instance, during orientation the principal allegedly said she would be “counseling” her on getting back on the “right path” and falsely implied she had a criminal history. The principal also allegedly treated her less favorably than her peers by constantly observing her classroom and reprimanding her for tardiness, amongst other things.

“Red flag” remark. She also claimed the principal often implied her illnesses were attributable to past or ongoing drug use. For instance, after she took sick leave to recover from the flu in October 2021, the principal convened a meeting with the HR specialist and characterized her sick leave as a “red flag.” And after an extreme bout of nausea which she attributed to elevated blood pressure, the principal asked the school nurse to opine on why she “thought” the teacher had become sick, and implied that her weight and excessive sweating were attributable to past or ongoing drug use.

Expired certification. To maintain her teaching certificate, the teacher had to earn six semester hours of acceptable credit within a five-year period ending on June 30, 2023. Though she attended all required classes for a six-credit course, she failed to submit the required coursework by the deadline due to mental health issues exacerbated by the principal’s harassment.

Terminated. In mid-July, after the teacher began supervising the school’s summer school program, the principal called her into a meeting with the HR specialist. At the meeting, the principal presented her with a letter stating that she was being terminated effective July1 because her teaching certificate had expired as of June 30. She subsequently filed this lawsuit.

Effect of CBA. At the outset, the court rejected the BOE’s contention that the teacher was required to utilize the grievance procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and that since she failed to do so she waived her right to a federal forum for adjudication of her claims. The Supreme Court has made clear that for claims brought pursuant to federal nondiscrimination statutes to be found subject to mandatory arbitration under a CBA, the agreement must include “clear and unmistakable” language to that effect. And here, the CBA did not reach the required clarity.

Not regarded as disabled by BOE. However, the court dismissed the teacher’s Rehab Act claim since she failed to plausibly allege that the BOE regarded her as having a disability. Significantly, it is the employer’s perception that is at issue in a “regarded as” disability claim, and her complaint made barely any reference to any actions the BOE took against her prior to her termination, let alone any facts suggesting it perceived her as having an impairment.

“Cat’s paw” theory fails. Her attempt to invoke the “cat’s paw” theory of liability also failed. Noting that neither the Supreme Court or the Fourth Circuit has analyzed the applicability of the theory to a claim under the Rehab Act and that other circuits are split on the issue, the court concluded it need not decide the question. Regardless of which standard of causation applied to the teacher’s claim, her factual allegations did not sufficiently assert the “cat’s paw” theory.

While she plausibly alleged that the principal harbored discriminatory animus based on the perception that she was a current drug addict, she did not also sufficiently allege that the principal “exercised authority” over her termination. Her conclusory allegations were insufficient, and it was not plausible that the principal’s “red flag” remark was even a proximate cause of her firing more than a year later. Similarly, the fact that the principal gave her the termination letter did not suggest she was the actual decisionmaker.

The court emphasized that other caselaw demonstrated that “a key allegation to sustain the theory is that the individual with the alleged animus performed an act that was intended to bring about the adverse employment action.” Here, the teacher did not claim that the principal made any “decision, report, or recommendation” or performed any other act with the intention to cause her termination, let alone plausibly allege that the BOE “rubber-stamped” such action. Indeed, she did not allege any communication between the principal and the BOE regarding the BOE’s decision to terminate her.

No due process violation. Because the teacher also failed to plausibly allege that she had a legitimate entitlement at the time she was terminated, the court also dismissed her Section 1983 claim alleging the BOE violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. Importantly, while her employment contract and state law provided a “certificated employee” with certain procedural protections, it was undisputed that she was not “certificated” at the time of her termination. Indeed, her contract expressly stated: “This contract shall automatically terminate if the employee ceases to hold a professional certificate.” Thus, she had no legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment once her certificate expired.

She also claimed that, in practice, BOE temporarily deviated from the procedure provided by state law by allowing uncertificated employees to continue to teach. However, the court found that this alleged practice did not warrant the inference that state law allowed her claim of entitlement to the continuation of that deviation. Moreover, her claim also failed at the second step of the due process analysis—determining what process is due—since the court could not infer that she was entitled to the procedural protections she alleged. Beyond the fact that her contract contradicted her allegations, Maryland courts and the state’s board of education have consistently emphasized that the pre-termination procedural requirements do not apply to employees who lack certification.

The case is No. SAG-25-00642.

Judge: Gallagher, S.

Attorneys: Ashley Ann Bosche (Cockey Brennan and Maloney) for Kristen Moody. Veronica Dasha Jackson (Miles & Stockbridge) for The Board of Education of Wicomico County.

Companies: The Board of Education of Wicomico County

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge IndividualRights PublicEmployees Labor UnionsMembers MarylandNews