Fisher v. Basehor-Linwood Unified Sch. Dist. No. 458
| Decision Date | 18 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 18-2664-DDC-ADM |
| Citation | 460 F.Supp.3d 1167 |
| Parties | Kelsey FISHER, Plaintiff, v. BASEHOR-LINWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 458, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Albert F. Kuhl, Law Offices of Albert F. Kuhl, Lenexa, KS, for Plaintiff.
Gregory P. Goheen, McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, PA, Kansas City, KS, for Defendant.
Defendant Basehor-Linwood Unified School District No. 458 employed plaintiff Kelsey Fisher as a middle school teacher from 2015 until 2018. After defendant terminated her employment in March 2018, she filed this lawsuit, alleging discriminatory treatment and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). This matter comes before the court on defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45). Plaintiff has filed a Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. 50), and defendant has filed a Reply (Doc. 53). For reasons explained below, the court grants summary judgment against plaintiff's claims.
The following facts are either stipulated by the parties in the Pretrial Order (Doc. 41), uncontroverted, or, where genuinely controverted, are stated in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the party opposing summary judgment. Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 378–80, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007).
Defendant is a unified school district and governmental subdivision of the state of Kansas, organized and existing under Article 6, § 5 of the Kansas Constitution and Kan. Stat. Ann. § 72-1131 – 72-1181. An elected Board of Education governs defendant. Defendant maintains policies adopted by its governing Board of Education prohibiting discrimination and retaliation based upon disability and provides a process for employees and others to make complaints about alleged discrimination and retaliation. Specifically, defendant maintains the following policies:
Defendant's teachers are covered by the Interest-Based Bargaining Agreement between defendant and the Association of Basehor-Linwood Educators. Plaintiff received a copy of the faculty handbook in each of the three school years defendant employed her.
Defendant employed plaintiff as a certified teacher at Basehor-Linwood Middle School for the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school years. An individual written teacher's contract governed her employment. During plaintiff's tenure at the middle school, Amy Garver ("Principal Garver") served as principal and Garold Baker ("Assistant Principal Baker") served as assistant principal. David Howard ("Superintendent Howard") served as superintendent.
Plaintiff "took seriously" her job responsibilities of "educating and facilitating current and former students" and "adhering to the designated school curriculum." Doc. 50-1 at 2 (Plaintiff Decl. ¶ 3). But plaintiff struggled with "classroom management" in her first year of teaching, and these problems "continued but improved" in her second and third years of teaching.1 Doc. 46-5 at 40 (Plaintiff Dep. 184:11–17). For example, Principal Garver recorded in plaintiff's "teacher observation form" for the 2015-16 school year that during plaintiff's classroom activity, students were visiting with each other, working on homework for other classes, and "goofing off." Id. at 40–41 (Plaintiff Dep. 185:24–186:13).
On October 6, 2015, an incident occurred in plaintiff's classroom, prompting plaintiff to say to her class—out of frustration—"this is why I hate this class." Id. at 41 (Plaintiff Dep. 188:16–19). Plaintiff informed Principal Garver about the comment she had made to the class. She also knew that several students had complained to Principal Garver. Principal Garver issued plaintiff a disciplinary reprimand. See Doc. 46-6. Plaintiff agreed with Principal Garver's discipline resulting from this situation. Plaintiff didn't know that Principal Garver had received other complaints from parents about her behavior in the classroom in February 2016. Doc. 46-5 at 42 (Plaintiff Dep. 190:25–191:3).
Principal Garver issued plaintiff a second written reprimand in April 2016 after she said the word "shit" in front of her students. Id. at 43 (Plaintiff Dep. 193:16–19). When plaintiff made this comment, a student volunteered that they would not report the comment if plaintiff bought them pizza. Plaintiff never agreed to buy pizza for the class, but the student who made the comment had the impression that plaintiff had agreed to the exchange. Then, on November 15, 2017, Principal Garver addressed an incident with plaintiff where she had explained the meaning of the word "gangbanging" to students. Doc. 46-8 at 3 (Garver Dep. 23:12–20).
According to Principal Garver, "classroom management" is a "huge part" of teaching. Id. at 23 (Garver Dep. 114:19–22). Principal Garver believed plaintiff struggled with this skill. Id. (Garver Dep. 115:20–25). In plaintiff's first year teaching at the middle school, plaintiff had one year of mentorship, i.e. , another teacher training her, assisting her, and providing her feedback. Id. (Garver Dep. 116:6–13). In her second year of teaching, a teacher provided consultation and checking in with plaintiff. Id. According to plaintiff, the welfare and safety of students is a priority for teachers.
Plaintiff has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"). Doc. 50-1 at 2 (Plaintiff Decl. ¶ 2); Doc. 50-11 at 6 (Mays Dep. 19:9–16). Her symptoms include stress, anxiety, elevated heart rate, shortness of breath, panic attacks, nightmares, and insomnia. Doc. 50-1 at 2 (Plaintiff Decl. ¶ 2). These symptoms impair her sleep and concentration. Id. She experiences chronic and incapacitating sleeplessness. Id. Dr. Kevin Mays, a psychiatrist, began treating her in November 2017. Doc. 50-11 at 4 (Mays Dep. 12:9–15). He has prescribed various medications for her sleeping problems. Id. at 17 (Mays Dep. 63:16–19). According to Dr. Mays, plaintiff's PTSD "negatively affect[s]" her sleep. Id. (Mays Dep. 62:13–19).
Plaintiff's disorder stems from a sexual assault she sustained. Doc. 50-1 at 2 (Plaintiff Decl. ¶ 2). During plaintiff's first year teaching at the middle school, she had shared with some co-workers—including Principal Garver—that she was a victim of a sexual assault. But Principal Garver didn't remember plaintiff disclosing a disability diagnosis. Doc. 46-8 at 26 (Garver Dep. 126:4–8). Nor did plaintiff seek accommodation for a disability. Id. (Garver Dep. 126:19–21). According to plaintiff, she "declined on one or more occasions" to answer questions about her mental health treatment and history, and during her employment, she "became concerned with whether [defendant's] administration was properly observing the legal rights of employees ... seeking non-discriminatory treatment." Doc. 50-1 at 2 (Plaintiff Decl. ¶ 4). According to Principal Garver, had plaintiff asked for an accommodation, she would have "contacted central office" and "worked out a plan that would have helped." Id. (Garver Dep. 127:1–7).
Sometime around November 16, 2017, plaintiff had a panic attack at school. This panic attack occurred near the end of the school day, while plaintiff was in her classroom supervising 25 eighth grade students. Plaintiff's symptoms consisted of a racing heart, irregular heartbeats, trouble catching her breath, and a feeling that the room was narrowing around her. Feeling she was "in distress," she stepped out of her classroom and into the hallway. A teacher across the hall saw her and came to check on her. The teacher told plaintiff she looked pale, and that it probably would be best if she arranged coverage for her classroom and left for the day. Plaintiff remained near her classroom while the other teacher went to the school office to seek help. Principal Garver then returned to plaintiff's classroom with a different teacher who could supervise plaintiff's class in her absence. Principal Garver walked plaintiff to the school nurse's office. The nurse checked plaintiff's blood pressure and pulse. Both were elevated. The nurse also listened to her heartbeat, which was racing. She recommended plaintiff go to an urgent care facility.
Principal Garver drove plaintiff to the urgent care. When they arrived, plaintiff began completing the required paperwork, but could not remember basic information like her birthdate. Doc. 46-5 at 12 (Plaintiff Dep. 53:1–8). Plaintiff slid the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donahue v. United Parcel Serv.
...... at 2. But on. June 28, Jonathan Fisher was Donahue's acting supervisor,. because ... (citing Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist. , 174 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 1999)). Once ... Basehor-Linwood Unified Sch. Dist. No. 48 , 460 F.Supp.3d. ......
-
Rhoads v. Stormont Vail Healthcare, Inc.
...... between $458,625.00 and $1,473,958.00. (Doc. 47-34 at 2-3.). ... causation. Fisher v. Basehor-Linwood Unified Sch. Dist. No. ......
-
Sisco v. Morton Buildings, Inc.
...as being disabled. No. reasonable jury could find Plaintiff's charge exhausted an unlawful medical examination claim. Plaintiff's reliance on Fisher is misplaced. Fisher dealt with whether the plaintiff had waived her § 12112(d) claim by not asserting it in her complaint. See 460 F.Supp.3d ......