Hebert v. Ascension Parish School Board
3:17-cv-00641
M.D. La.Aug 21, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Katina Hebert, a former Ascension Parish School Board (APSB) teacher, alleges disabilities (rhinitis, asthma, psoriasis, dermatitis, migraine headaches) and that APSB failed to reasonably accommodate her requests (primarily transfers) and terminated her on July 10, 2015 to avoid accommodations under the ADA.
- Hebert worked for APSB since 1999, was transferred to Sorrento Primary in 2011, repeatedly requested transfers and submitted medical letters from 2011–2015; APSB denied transfer requests and rated her “ineffective” under state-mandated teacher-evaluation rules.
- APSB defends that termination was based solely on objective poor performance and state law authorizing termination of ineffective teachers; APSB says it engaged in an interactive accommodation process and provided some accommodations though transfers were denied.
- The court excluded Plaintiff’s education expert and a treating physician for lack of relevant expertise, but admitted an air-quality expert (limited to engineering opinions) and defense performance-evaluation expert; it also allowed evidence of Plaintiff’s job performance (but not comparative teacher performance).
- Applying the ADA Amendments Act and EEOC regulations (post-2008), the court found genuine disputes of material fact on key issues (disability, qualification, reasonable accommodation, pretext/retaliation) and therefore denied both parties’ summary judgment motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hebert is "disabled" under the ADA | Hebert asserts her conditions substantially limit major life activities (breathing, concentrating, sleeping, working); medical records and her declaration suffice | APSB contends Hebert is not disabled under ADA and lacks medical proof of substantial limitation | Genuine dispute of material fact exists; jury must decide (motions denied) |
| Whether Hebert was a "qualified individual" | Hebert says she could perform essential functions and accommodations could have enabled effective performance; points to later "Highly Effective" evaluation in another parish | APSB says state-mandated "effective" rating is an essential job function and Hebert’s "ineffective" rating shows she was unqualified | Court: being deemed "effective" is an essential function under state law, but factual dispute exists whether accommodations could have allowed performance — triable issue |
| Failure to provide reasonable accommodation / interactive process | Hebert says APSB denied transfers, failed to enforce accommodations, mocked her, and did not meaningfully engage in the interactive process | APSB says it discussed and provided reasonable accommodations where possible and that some requests arrived after termination proceedings began | Court found genuine disputes about whether APSB engaged in the interactive process in good faith and whether reasonable accommodations were provided; triable issue |
| Discrimination / retaliation (termination motivation) | Hebert contends termination was motivated at least in part by her disabilities and accommodation requests; cites derogatory emails, deviations from evaluation procedures, timing of observations | APSB points to objective poor performance, state law grounds for termination, and that recommendation to terminate preceded some protected actions | Court concluded APSB provided nondiscriminatory reasons but Hebert produced sufficient evidence to create triable issues on pretext and mixed motives; retaliation and discrimination claims survive summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) (pre-ADAAA Supreme Court treatment of "disability" standard)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) (pre-ADAAA standard for "substantially limits")
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- E.E.O.C. v. LHC Group, Inc., 773 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 2014) (ADA discrimination analysis)
- Williams v. Tarrant County Coll. Dist., [citation="717 F. App'x 440"] (5th Cir. 2018) (post-ADAAA Fifth Circuit holding that plaintiff testimony can create genuine dispute on substantial limitation)