Pandazides v. Virginia Bd. of Educ.

Decision Date30 October 1990
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 90-1081-A.
Citation752 F. Supp. 696
PartiesSophia P. PANDAZIDES, Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

Steven D. Stone, Alexandria, Va., for plaintiff.

Joseph Dyer, Mary McGowan, Fairfax, Va., Joan W. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va., and Craig C. Reilly, Murphy, McGettigan & West, Alexandria, Va., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HILTON, District Judge.

This matter came before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss and alternatively, motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages under the Rehabilitation Act alleging that she has been discriminated against solely by reason of her handicap. The Virginia Board of Education alleges that plaintiff is not an "otherwise qualified individual" as defined by the Rehabilitation Act and thus, cannot invoke the protections of the Act. 29 U.S.C. § 794. While plaintiff contends that material facts are in dispute, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff alleges that she is being prevented from continuing her employment in the Prince William County Schools because she lacks a teaching certificate as required by the Virginia Board of Education. The teaching certificate is obtained by meeting a series of requirements, including passing a specific examination, the National Teachers Examination (NTE). She lacks this certificate because plaintiff is unable to pass the Communication Skills test of the NTE due to a learning disability. Plaintiff further alleges that this examination discriminates against her and that the Virginia Board of Education has refused to waive, accommodate, adapt, alter or offer alternatives to the examination requirement.

Plaintiff in this action invokes the protections of the Rehabilitation Act. However, since she is not minimally qualified as a teacher she is not protected by the Rehabilitation Act.

Section 504 of the Act provides that:

no otherwise qualified handicapped individual ... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. ...

29 U.S.C. § 794. An otherwise qualified handicapped individual "is one who is able to meet all of a program's requirements in spite of his handicap." Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 406, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 2367, 60 L.Ed.2d 980 (1979). The Rehabilitation Act does not require the Virginia Board of Education "to disregard the disabilities of handicapped individuals or to make substantial modifications in their programs to allow disabled persons to participate." Id. 442 U.S. at 405, 99 S.Ct. at 2366.

Plaintiff alleges that substantial modifications in the Virginia Board of Education's licensure standards are not required. However, plaintiff seeks either waiver of the requirements for licensure, an oral exam, or unlimited time to complete the exam.1 Such alterations are substantial modifications and are far more than the Rehabilitation Act requires.

Plaintiff cannot pass the Communication Skills test of the NTE. The Communications Skills test covers listening, reading and writing and tests the candidates' ability to understand and use the elements of written or spoken language. The NTE has been determined to be one of the basic qualifications necessary to receive a teaching certificate in Virginia and thus, to become a teacher within the Prince William County School system. Yet, the plaintiff has not passed that initial licensing exam in order to receive certification. The Rehabilitation Act is not an affirmative action statute and the Virginia...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Pandazides v. Virginia Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • January 14, 1994
    ...qualified" for the position of school teacher under Sec. 504, the district court granted summary judgment for the Board. 752 F.Supp. 696 (E.D.Va.1990). Pandazides appealed, and this court reversed and remanded. 946 F.2d 345 (4th Cir.1991). Following remand, the Board moved to strike Pandazi......
  • Petition of Rubenstein
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • January 25, 1994
    ...of accommodations made by testing authorities pursuant to other disabilities legislation. See, e.g., Pandazides v. Virginia Bd. of Educ., 752 F.Supp. 696, 697 (E.D.Va.1990), rev'd and remanded, 946 F.2d 345 (4th Cir.1991). The ADA also provides authority, for example, that a testing authori......
  • Kimsey v. Snap-On Tools Corp., C-C-90-0328-P
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • November 28, 1990
  • Pandazides v. Virginia Bd. of Educ., 91-2313
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • October 23, 1991
    ...moved for dismissal, or alternatively for summary judgment, on October 11, 1990. Summary Judgment was granted for the Board on October 30, 1990, 752 F.Supp. 696, from which this appeal was Pandazides is a teacher who suffers from several learning disabilities. Her employment as a teacher an......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT