Corporate Counsel Daily, Teacher who advocated for students with disabilities stated Rehab Act retaliation claim, (May 21, 2024)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

Among other things, the third-grade teacher alleged that his principal prohibited him—but no other teachers—from holding morning recess.

A public school teacher who suffered from anxiety, advocated for disabled students, and alleged that his principal “engaged in a systematic effort to undermine and intimidate him,” stated a claim of retaliation under the Rehab Act, but not either a hostile work environment or violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, ruled a federal district court in Pennsylvania. Though none of the teacher’s allegations supported a reasonable inference that the school district perceived him to be “incapable of performing” the functions of his position because of his own disabilities, he plausibly alleged that the employer responded adversely to his advocacy on behalf of the students, and that the principal “targeted and harassed” him for over a year and a half because he opposed retaliation for it. His complaint was, however, devoid of allegations regarding when or how, as he alleged, an unlawful search or seizure of his medical records occurred (Hill v. South Eastern School District, No. 1:23-CV-1507 (M.D. Pa. May 17, 2024)).

Third-grade teacher. The plaintiff, according to the court, has been a public-school teacher at South Eastern School District’s Fawn Area Elementary School in York County, Pennsylvania, since at least 2018. During the 2022 and 2023 school years, he and his colleague co-taught a group of about 40 third-grade students.

Support for new student. In December 2021, a new student who was disabled joined his classroom. The student had behavioral issues and regularly disrupted the class, and the teacher claimed that he and his colleague “did everything they could do to support the student,” including seeking assistance from the principal and the school counselor. “Despite their entreaties,” according to the court, the two teachers did not receive any classroom support. The colleague “was compelled to act as the disabled student’s personal care assistant for the remainder of the academic year” while the plaintiff taught the class on his own.

Alleged “systematic effort to undermine.” The teacher alleged that, after he complained to the administration about the school counselor’s lack of support for the student, the principal “engaged in a systematic effort to undermine and intimidate him.” The principal met with the teacher, his colleague, and another teacher on April 6, 2022, and purportedly discussed the teachers’ “mental health.” He allegedly said that he “and other teachers had noticed they were angry and depressed.”

The principal also allegedly attended meetings that the two teachers held with the disabled student, but deliberately “remain[ed] uninvolved.” He did not take any remedial actions to help the teacher maintain control of his classroom, and in September 2022, he decided that third-grade teachers were no longer allowed to complete student performance measures. Two months later, the principal refused to provide the teacher and his colleague with funds or staffing support for their after-school social-emotional club, even though he had encouraged them to start the club.

No recess. The teacher alleged that the harassment continued into early 2023, when the principal prohibited him—but no other teachers—from holding morning recess, causing “a rise in bad behavior.”

Unhoused student. On February 2, 2023, the teacher sent an unhoused student to the office because the student threw Lincoln Logs at another child. When the teacher determined that the principal and counselor were unavailable, he took the initiative to talk to the homeless student about, among other things, “making good choices with his life.”

Shortly thereafter, the counselor allegedly informed the teacher the student’s mother had complained that the teacher “called her son a liar, a thief, and a cheat.” The counselor went so far as to express her concern to the teacher that the student may be suicidal as a result of the teacher’s handling of the matter. She also reported the incident to the principal, who then attempted to hold a factfinding meeting with the teacher before postponing the meeting at his request.

Factfinding and disciplinary meetings. The meeting eventually was held on February 10, 2023. Attendees included the teacher, principal, an HR representative, a co-worker who agreed to act as the teacher’s notetaker, and a fourth-grade teacher who attended over the teacher’s objection and served as the principal’s notetaker. The plaintiff alleged that the principal reprimanded him during the meeting, intimidated him, and sullied his professional reputation.

The principal also allegedly required him to attend a second disciplinary meeting at the end of February, which interfered with his end-of-day prep time.

Continuing alleged harassment. He alleged that the principal continued to harass him throughout the spring semester by (1) nullifying his award system for students, causing students and parents to complain; (2) scolding him and his colleague for walking with students in the hallway; and (3) terminating students’ learning support services a month early, upsetting at least one parent.

Move to fourth grade. As the school year ended, the principal informed the teacher that he was being moved to the fourth grade so that he could continue teaching his students at the next grade level. He requested to stay in his current position, but the principal denied this request. The teacher alleged that the principal’s rationale for his move was pretextual: by moving him to fourth grade, the principal could “surveil” him via the fourth-grade teacher who had attended the factfinding meeting.

Unsatisfactory performance evaluation. In May 2023, the teacher received his annual performance evaluation from the principal and allegedly received an unsatisfactory score for the year, primarily because of his purported mishandling of the incident involving the unhoused student. He alleged that this was the first time he received a below-satisfactory score.

Grievance denied. Alleging that the principal sought “to undermine his position and force him from his job” because of his disabilities and advocacy for disabled students, the teacher filed a grievance against the principal for allegedly violating the collective bargaining agreement, which the principal denied.

Meeting with superintendent. The teacher then met with the superintendent of schools in June 2023. The superintendent ultimately informed him that he still had to move to the fourth grade and that everyone needed to sit down together and work through these issues.

No relief for “anxiety and bed wetting.” The teacher, in turn, asked how that approach would ameliorate his “anxiety and bed wetting,” recent medical diagnoses he attributed to the principal. At the conclusion of the meeting, the teacher submitted his rebuttal and interview notes, which the superintendent placed in his personnel file. The teacher blames the school district for failing to take prompt remedial action and contends that the alleged hostile work environment is ongoing.

Lawsuit and motion to dismiss. The teacher sued on September 12, 2023, alleging hostile work environment (HWE) and retaliation against the school district, and unlawful search and seizure against both the school district and the principal. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Hostile work environment. The court first found that dismissal of the teacher’s Rehab Act HWE claim was appropriate. Although he adequately alleged that he experienced physical and mental impairments during his employment, and that the employer eventually became aware of his impairments, none of his allegations supported a reasonable inference that representatives of the school district perceived him to be “incapable of performing” the functions of a public school teacher because of his disabilities. Indeed, he alleged that the principal reassigned him to teach fourth grade, demonstrating that the principal believed him to be capable of performing the essential functions of his job. Thus, finding that he had not plausibly alleged that the district regarded him as disabled, the court dismissed the claim without prejudice.

Retaliation and protected activity. Turning to his Rehab Act retaliation claim, however, the court found that the teacher established that he engaged in a protected activity. He alleged that he began advocating for disabled and homeless students as early as December 2021, and he specifically argued that he and his colleague notified administrators that the school district was not providing those students with adequate academic and emotional support. Viewing these facts in a light most favorable to the teacher, his purported advocacy constituted “an informal complaint against or opposition to disability discrimination,” according to the court.

Adverse action. The teacher also plausibly alleged that the employer responded adversely to his advocacy. He alleged that, shortly after he advocated for disabled students and opposed the district’s alleged discrimination, school officials retaliated against him by, among other things, (1) wrongfully disseminating his medical information, (2) reprimanding him without cause and threatening to terminate him, (3) reassigning him to a different grade level without administrative need or purpose, and (4) negatively rating him on an end-of-year performance evaluation. These allegations, if true, the court found, “likely would dissuade a reasonable employee from rocking the boat by lodging or supporting charges of discrimination against well-connected peers or upper-level administrators with supervisory authority.”

Causal nexus. Next, the teacher’s allegations plausibly set forth a causal nexus between his protected activity and the adverse actions attributable to the employer. The teacher argued that the principal “targeted and harassed” him because he opposed being retaliated against for his advocacy on behalf of disabled students. The teacher allegedly began experiencing various adverse actions at work immediately after advocating for a disabled student in December 2021, and those actions then continued for more than a year and a half. He thus sufficiently alleged causation by identifying “a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing,” according to the court. The district’s motion to dismiss the Rehab Act retaliation claim was thus denied.

Fourth Amendment claim against principal. The teacher’s Fourth Amendment claim against the principal, however, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was dismissed without prejudice. The teacher alleged that the principal violated his Fourth Amendment rights by unreasonably searching and seizing his medical records, but the complaint was “devoid of allegations regarding when or how a search or seizure occurred,” according to the court. In his supporting brief, the teacher argued that “it may be inferred... that [the principal] and potentially others may have accessed [his] personnel or medical information” based on the principal’s offhand remark that the teacher seemed “angry and depressed,” but such an inference was unwarranted. The teacher simply failed to plead facts showing how or when a search or seizure of his medical records occurred, and, if one did occur, that it was not for a work-related purpose.

Municipal liability. His municipal liability claim against the school district similarly failed because he did not plausibly allege a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

Leave to amend. Finally, noting that many of the deficiencies in pleading it had identified were factual and potentially curable, the court granted the teacher leave to amend.

The case is No. 1:23-CV-1507.

Judge: Connor, C.

Attorneys: Jeremy Donham (Donham Law) for Brian Hill. Christopher J. Conrad (Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin) for South Eastern School District and Zane S. Fake.

Companies: South Eastern School District

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation IndividualRights Privacy PennsylvaniaNews GCNNews