Crawford v. Department of Correctional Education
3:11-cv-00430
| E.D. Va. | Nov 29, 2011Background
- Plaintiff Marla Crawford, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sues the Virginia Department of Correctional Education (DCE) under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Title VII.
- Plaintiff alleges disability and related accommodations issues at DCE from Oct 2008 to May 2009, including evacuation accommodations and a chair/ergonomic needs.
- She was Director of Math and Science Curriculum and Instruction for DCE youth schools, employed July 2008–May 2009.
- Her building evacuation accommodations were removed during a February 2009 evacuation, forcing stair use and oxygen dependence.
- She allegedly faced a negative performance evaluation in March 2009 and was terminated by a letter dated April 28, 2009, with termination effective May 1, 2009.
- EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice in March 2011, and Crawford filed suit July 5, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA Title I: whether damages are barred by Eleventh Amendment | Crawford alleges ongoing disability discrimination. | Title I cannot provide damages against Virginia; alleged ongoing relief improper. | Title I claims for damages barred; only prospective relief deemed potentially proper. |
| ADA Title I: viability of prospective relief for ongoing violations | Seeking reinstatement and accommodation. | Employment ended; remedy not proper prospective relief. | No viable prospective relief; Title I claim dismissed." |
| Rehabilitation Act §504 timeliness | Discrimination occurred before termination and within applicable period. | Claim time-barred under Virginia Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. | Claim time-barred; dismissed. |
| Title VII discrimination under McDonnell Douglas framework | Disparate treatment based on race evidenced by handling of incidents. | No direct evidence or similarly situated comparators; no prima facie case. | Dismissed for failure to state a Title VII discrimination claim. |
| Title VII retaliation claim | Protected activity occurred post-termination; retaliation alleged. | Plaintiff did not engage in protected activity during employment. | Retaliation claim dismissed for lack of protected activity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (requiring more than mere labels and conclusions to state a claim)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes framework for assessing discrimination claims)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (McDonnell Douglas framework limitations in retaliation context)
- Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (definition of prima facie case framework)
- Ostergren v. Cuccinelli, 615 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2010) (injunctive relief must be tailored to the harm)
- Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635 (U.S. 2002) (Ex parte Young doctrine guidance for prospective relief against states)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1974) (state consent to be sued not assumed by federal funding programs)
- Garrett v. Univ. of Ala., 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2001) (Abrogation/consent limits on damages against states under ADA Title I)
- Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406 (U.S. 1977) (injunctions limited to the scope of the violation)