Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—M.D. Fla.: Speech language pathologist’s request to meet with students virtually was unreasonable, (Oct 3, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

To allow her to do so would mean the school board would have to hire a physically present employee for her sessions to chaperone the students, which “would require two people for the job of one.”

A public school board did not violate the ADA when it denied a speech language pathologist’s request to work with students virtually as an accommodation for her multiple sclerosis, and then terminated her after she refused to return to in-person work with the other accommodations it offered. Dismissing her disability discrimination and retaliation claims on summary judgment, a federal district court found that even though she was allowed to meet with students virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic, the record established that being physically present with the students, including those with cognitive disabilities who required assistance with routine tasks, was an essential function of her job that she had performed for over two decades, and her request to work remotely was unreasonable (Agrait v. Hillsborough County Public Schools, No. 8:23-cv-01555-SDM-SPF (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2025)).

Prior accommodations. The speech language pathologist worked for the school district since 1993. Around 1998, she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. To overcome the resulting vision and mobility problems, she relied on eyeglasses and a walker or electric scooter. The school board also provided her a handicapped parking space and allowed her to take medical leave during “flare ups.”

Special needs students. The employee provided services for kindergarten through 12th grade exceptional student education (ESE) and for non-ESE students. ESE students ranged from preschool age up to 21 years old and had a diagnosis of developmental delay. They included students with cognitive disabilities that required assistance with routine tasks, some of whom were completely nonverbal.

“Virtual” during pandemic. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the district adopted online learning and temporarily loosened the requirement of onsite work for its staff. As a result, during the 2020—21 school year, the employee provided her services to students “virtually.” However, by the 2021—2022 school year, her students attended school in person, and she was again required to service them in person as she had for more than two decades.

Telework request. In 2021, the employee went to the hospital in August due to COVID-19 complications and again in December due to a stomach virus. Both ailments exacerbated her MS, and she feared returning to in-person work would make matters worse. As a result, on December 31, 2021, and again on January 20, 2022, she submitted requests to work from home indefinitely. In addition to submitting two doctor’s notes, she proposed that the board adopt a “Pilot Program” that would enable her to provide her services virtually while an onsite staff member would chaperone students attending the remote diagnostic sessions.

Rejects other accommodations. The school board denied her requests to telework and encouraged her to discuss with her doctor possible accommodations to enable her to work at school. If she could not return to the workplace, she was instructed to contact the leave specialist to explore options. The board also offered to move her office closer to her handicap parking space, a transfer to the virtual school’s SLP position if it became available, and medical leave. However, she rejected these proposed accommodations.

For a few days in February, she attempted to work remotely with the assistance of school personnel who were unaware her telework had been denied, one of whom complained to her about the arrangement. Upon learning about this, the school board again informed her that remote work was unacceptable.

Terminated. On March 8, the personnel manager mailed her a letter stating that she was absent without leave since January 3, that she was told several times that remote work was not an option, that she must return to work or take a leave of absence, and that she was in violation of the attendance policy. He reiterated these points with her during a phone call on March 21. She refused all options and continued to insist that she be allowed to work from home. On April 1, her employment was terminated.

Physical presence essential to job. In order to show she was a qualified individual under the ADA, the employee needed to demonstrate that she could perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation. Here, the crucial issue was whether the school district established that in-person attendance was an essential function of the SLP position. Considering the relevant factors, the court found it met that burden.

In addition to evidence the policy manual and job description required physical attendance, the record showed that as an SLP, the employee worked with in-person students. Each day, she met approximately 20 students in her office without assistance unless a specific student required a one-on-one aide. She acknowledged the importance of adult supervision for the students, especially if an emergency occurred or if a student was uncooperative. As a result, if she did not meet in person with a student, another adult would need to be present to supervise her students.

Remote work not reasonable. Here, the only accommodation the employee requested was to work remotely on an indefinite basis. “But, as discussed, [her] in-person attendance was an essential function of her position and eliminating the essential functions of a position is per se unreasonable,” stated the court. Moreover, allowing her to telework would require the school board to hire a physically present staff member during her SLP sessions to chaperone the students—requiring two people to perform the job of one. In addition, not all students were suited for virtual therapy services due to developmental or behavioral problems. Based on these factors, allowing her to work remotely was not a reasonable accommodation.

Retaliation. The employee’s retaliation claim also failed. Though the district conceded that she engaged in the protected conduct of requesting accommodations, the only evidence of retaliatory animus that she presented was the timing of her termination and “mere temporal proximity, without more, must be very close.” That was not the case here, as the timing between her requests to work from home in December and January and her termination in April, absent other evidence, was not suspect enough to infer causation.

The case is No. 8:23-cv-01555-SDM-SPF.

Judge: Merryday, S.

Attorneys: Nilsa Ivette Agrait, pro se. Phillip J. Harris (Akerman) for Hillsborough County Public Schools.

Companies: Hillsborough County Public Schools

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation FloridaNews