Belasco v. Warrensville Heights City Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 15 January 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:13 CV 546.
• Citation: 86 F.Supp.3d 748
• Parties: Norma BELASCO, Plaintiff, v. WARRENSVILLE HEIGHTS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

86 F.Supp.3d 748

Norma BELASCO, Plaintiff

v.WARRENSVILLE HEIGHTS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:13 CV 546.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

Signed Jan. 15, 2015.

Filed Jan. 16, 2015.

David G. Phillips, Cleveland, OH, Edward R. Forman, John S. Marshall, Marshall & Morrow, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiff.

Inajo D. Chappell, Max W. Thomas, Ulmer & Berne, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DONALD C. NUGENT, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants, Warrensville Heights City School District; Felicia Woods–Wallace and Darlene Bushley. (Docket # 33.) Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, Defendants seek summary judgment as to all of the claims asserted by Plaintiff, Norma Belasco.

I. Factual Background.

Ms. Belasco was a teacher in the Warrensville Heights City School District during the 1998–99 school year, and then from 2005–2012. (Declaration of Norma Belasco at ¶ 9.) From 2005–2011, Ms. Belasco was teacher for gifted and talented students. (Brief in Opposition at p. 3.) In 2010, Ms. Belasco was assigned to Eastwood Elementary school under Principal Felicia Woods–Wallace. (Deposition of Felicia Woods–Wallace at p. 12.) The funding for the gifted program was eventually cut and Ms. Belasco was assigned to a regular fourth grade classroom for the 2011–12 school year. (Id. at pp. 12–13.)

From 2007 through 2013, Ms. Belasco suffered from renal failure and required dialysis. (Deposition of Norma Belasco at p. 20.) In the fall of 2012, Ms. Belasco required dialysis 3 times per week. (Brief in Opposition at p. 8; Deposition of Norma Belasco at pp. 7–9.) Due to her condition, Ms. Belasco experienced pain and discomfort; had difficulty balancing; suffered from shortness of breath; had occasional cramps in her arms and legs; and, needed to use a walker at times. (Id. at p. 8.) Ms. Belasco testified during deposition that she used her walker during the school day because she would get very tired when walking. (Id. at p. 23.) Ms. Belasco received a kidney transplant on April 9, 2013. (Declaration of Norma Belasco at ¶ 10.)

During the 2011–12 school year, Ms. Belasco states that her “classroom was continually disrupted by three boys who were out of control to the point that they were beyond her ability to deal with them.” (Brief in Opposition at p. 4; Deposition of Norma Belasco at pp. 21–22.) The Parties do not appear to dispute that there were disruptive students in the class. Ms. Belasco states that she requested help from the Principal during that time, “even if it was for only two or three hours a week,” because they created a dangerous environment for her and for the other children. (Brief in Opposition at p. 4; Deposition of Norma Belasco at p. 24.) Ms. Belasco did not formally request a full or part-time teacher's aide at that time. (Deposition of Norma Belasco at p. 24.) During her deposition, Ms. Belasco stated as follows:

Q: Why were you requesting assistance?

A: Because I had three boys that were dangerous ... I did not have any help to deal with them. They got beyond my ability to deal with them; we're not allowed to break up fights, et cetera.

Q. Was your inability to deal with them related to your perceived disability, what you say is your disability?

A: Only in that I was afraid for the children's safety, but I was also afraid that they might knock me down; I might get hurt, too.

* * *

Q: Was your inability to deal with the students, as you have described it, a result of the limitations that you suffered or a result of their behaviors?

A: A result of their behavior.

Q: So when you requested assistance, you were requesting assistance to deal with their behaviors, not assistance to perform your duties as a result of the limitations that you experienced?

A: Well, they were related, obviously.

Q. How were they related?

A: As I said, my balance and things like that were not perfect, so I was a little afraid that the children would hurt each other, but also could knock me down, which has happened with teachers.

Q: Did you ever have happen with you?

A: It didn't happen with me, but I was afraid.

(Deposition of Normal Belasco at pp. 22–23.)

A. District Concerns.

Defendants state that during the 2011–12 school year, numerous concerns arose regarding Ms. Belasco's job performance. (Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 2; State Hearing Exhibit STIP–2.) Pursuant to the Teacher Job Description, Ms. Belasco was required to implement effective pupil management procedures; maintain a positive learning environment; help parents/students understand academic objectives, behavioral standards, and performance expectations; take precautions to ensure safety; and, provide appropriate student supervision. (Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 4; State Hearing Exhibit STIP–2.) Defendants raised concerns over Ms. Belasco's ability to manage her classroom; her ability to implement reading curriculum and accurately report grades; her frequent absences; and, concerns about her ability to perform the physical demands of the job. (Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 2.)

1. Classroom Management

Ms. Belasco acknowledged the requirement and need for classroom management and admitted that her “class was not controlled properly.” (State Hearing Transcript at 434:1–3; 444:7–11; and 445:14–446:23.) There is also testimony from the Principal Woods Wallace (State Hearing Transcript at 191:12–192:2; 193:11–15); the School Security Guard, Frankie Melton (State Hearing Transcript at 22:24–23:43; 22:5–7); Human Resources Director Bushley (State Hearing Transcript at 642:13–644:11 and 752:14–753:23) and, the School Secretary, Patricia Cartwright (State Hearing Transcript at 37:2–20), that Ms. Belasco's classroom was not controlled properly.¹

Ms. Belasco states that she “asked for the accommodation” of having another adult in the classroom to watch the three children while she was writing on the board and also requested the three children be separated from each other in different classrooms. (Brief in Opposition at p. 4; Deposition of Norma Belasco at pp. 211–25.) Ms. Belasco states that the Principal Woods–Wallace was aware of the disruptions in her classroom but consistently refused her requests for help. (Brief in Opposition at p. 5; Deposition of Norma Belasco at p. 24; Deposition of Principal Felicia Woods–Wallace at p. 41.) The Court has reviewed the deposition testimony and State Hearing testimony of several District employees, who indicated that others would step in to help Ms. Belasco restore order as needed. (Deposition of Darlene Bushley at p. 23; Woods–Wallace Depo. at pp. 39–40; Melton Depo. at pp. 17, 20, 28 and 30; State Hearing Transcript at pp. 23 37, 569, and 642–44.) Ms. Woods–Wallace testified that Ms. Belasco did not follow the District's policy regarding how to deal with disruptive students. Ms. Belasco argues that she was never adequately trained as to those policies and procedures.

2. Reading Curriculum/Grades

During the 2011–12 school year, the District used the Action 100 Book Challenge reading program. Ms. Belasco was responsible for implementing the mandatory program in her classroom. (State Hearing Transcript at pp. 623–26.) The program set reading goals for the students and required teachers to monitor student progress; conference with the students to measure progress; and, enter reading levels and scores into a computerized system for tracking progress. (State Hearing Transcript at pp. 121–29 and 154.) Jennifer Ervin, a teacher in the District, was assigned to coordinate the 100 Book Challenge and assist teachers with implementing the program. (Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 7.) Numerous training sessions were held regarding program implementation and Ms. Ervin was available for additional assistance as needed. (Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 7; State Hearing Transcript at pp. 86–87 and Hearing Exhibits WH–13 and WH–14.)

The District raised concerns that Ms. Belasco did not implement the reading program as required and did not properly enter student reading scores into the system. Ms. Ervin; Principal Woods–Wallace; Superintendent Marva Jones; and, Ms. Bushley reviewed Ms. Belasco's system entries and believed the entries to be false. (State Hearing Transcript at p. 496.) Ms. Belasco asserts that the failure to record the reading data was the result of the constant disruptions in her classroom and because she did not receive enough training or assistance regarding the program. (State Hearing Transcript at 448:12–2; 489:24–491:14.) In her Brief in Opposition, Ms. Belasco states, “There was no constructive advice or explanation of how Ms. Belasco could meet Action 100 goals in a constantly disrupted classroom.” (Brief in Opposition at p. 8.) Ms. Ervin testified that Ms. Belasco missed many of the training sessions that were held and did not make those training sessions up. (Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 7; State Hearing Transcript at pp. 86–87 and 498–99 and Hearing Exhibits WH–13 and WH–14.)

In addition to the foregoing, Principal Woods–Wallace asked to review Ms. Belasco's grade book and found it did not correlate with assignments and was incomplete. (Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 8; State Hearing Transcript at pp. 230–233 and Hearing Exhibits WH–9, WH–10 and WH–11.) Ms. Belasco asserts that the District's allegations of grade falsification were unfounded because they had reviewed entries in her personal grade book—rather than the school database—and that she was permitted to keep grades in any manner she chose in her personal grade book. (Brief in Opposition at p. 12.)

3. Frequent Tardies/Absences

Defendants assert Ms. Belasco was absent 26 times from the beginning of the 2011–12 school year until she was placed on paid administrative leave on January 18, 2012. (State Hearing Transcript at pp. 688–89 and State Hearing Exhibits WH–6 and WH–7.) Defendants also assert that Ms. Belasco was repeatedly tardy and the District would have to scramble...