Hill v. Assocs. for Renewal in Educ., Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 15-7064,15-7064 |
| Citation | 897 F.3d 232 |
| Parties | Brien O. HILL, Appellant v. ASSOCIATES FOR RENEWAL IN EDUCATION, INC., Appellee |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Yongo Ding, Washington, DC, appointed by the court, argued the cause as amicus curiae in support of appellant. With him on the brief was Anthony F. Shelley, Washington, DC, appointed by the court.
Brien O. Hill, pro se, filed the briefs for appellant.
Jiyoung Yoon argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellee.
Before: Rogers, Kavanaugh* and Wilkins, Circuit Judges.
This is an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") employment case. Plaintiff Brien Hill is a single-leg amputee who taught in defendant Associates for Renewal in Education’s ("ARE’s") afterschool program. The District Court granted partial summary judgment for ARE on two of Hill’s claims, which he now appeals. Three other claims went to trial, where Hill was awarded damages for ARE’s failure to accommodate his disability by refusing his request to teach on a lower floor. The primary issues on appeal are whether ARE also failed to reasonably accommodate Hill’s disability by refusing his request for a classroom aide, and whether ARE’s failures to accommodate Hill’s disability created a hostile work environment. Hill proceeded pro se in the District Court and was represented by appointed counsel for this appeal.
We affirm the District Court’s conclusion that Hill has not proffered sufficient undisputed facts for his hostile-work-environment claim to survive summary judgment. We reverse as to Hill’s remaining failure-to-accommodate claim, however, because Hill’s allegations present a triable issue of fact as to whether ARE violated the ADA when it refused his request for a classroom aide.
The following facts are taken from the parties’ submissions on ARE’s motion for summary judgment and are undisputed unless otherwise indicated. ARE is a non-profit that provides care and educational programs to underserved children and adults in Washington, D.C. It is located in a three-story building with no elevator, requiring teachers to climb up and down the stairs "for fire and emergency evacuation drills, supervised outdoor play and scheduled student lavatory breaks located on the basement floor." Supplemental Brief for Plaintiff ("Pl. Supp.") 3, Hill v. Assoc. for Renewal in Educ. , No. 12-cv-823, ECF No. 41. Hill, who wears a leg prosthesis, was employed by ARE in various capacities until his employment was terminated in December 2008. As an ARE teacher and program aide, Hill’s duties included "instructing participants in the classroom, on field trips or outside activities; prepar[ing] and administer[ing] overall classroom management; counsel[ing] participants on academic and behavioral challenges, as well as, provid[ing] administrative and/or clerical support to the administrative personnel." Affidavit of La’Troy Bailey ("Bailey Aff.") ¶ 5, ECF No. 32-1. Prior to 2007, Hill requested and was granted several accommodations for his disability, including a request for assignment to a lower-level classroom.
In May 2007, Hill fell while walking across the ARE playground, "severely injur[ing his] amputated stump
and damag[ing his] prosthesis." Declaration of Brien Hill ¶ 5, ECF No. 33. Upon returning to work, he requested a classroom aide for himself and his pregnant co-teacher.
Hill also requested that he be able to continue holding class on the second floor of the building. These requests were granted until August 27, 2007, when Hill was reassigned to a classroom by himself on the third floor and without a classroom aide. Hill alleged that he "expressed [his] concerns" about this reassignment verbally on August 31, 2007; that he made a written request to be "repositioned back to the lower level" and have "the accommodation of having an Aide assigned to [his] classroom;" and that he followed up with "daily verbal request[s]" for these two accommodations throughout the school year. Declaration of Brien Hill ("Hill Decl.") ¶¶ 8-10, ECF No. 10. These accommodations were not provided. Hill was the only teacher in his program who was not assigned a classroom aide, and Hill taught more students than any of his colleagues.
Around the same period of time, Hill began to have disciplinary issues at work. On September 1, 2007, Hill’s duties were changed to a part-time position due to a reduction in force and due to his "excessive tardiness and inconsistent call-ins." Bailey Aff. ¶ 4. His supervisor eventually recommended Hill’s termination, and on that same day, Hill submitted a letter to ARE’s Deputy Director of Education requesting review of the denial of his requests for a classroom aide and for assignment to a lower floor, among other issues. Hill was terminated effective December 15, 2008.
Hill filed a pro se complaint against ARE asserting, among other things, a hostile work environment and several ADA claims, including failure to accommodate for denying his requests for a classroom aide and for denying his request to teach on a lower floor. Compl. ¶¶ 43-78, ECF No. 1. ARE moved for summary judgment on most of the ADA claims, arguing that Hill did not actually make the accommodation requests. ARE did not argue that the accommodations of a lower floor or a classroom aide were unreasonable or unnecessary for Hill to perform the essential functions of his job, nor did ARE argue that Hill was unqualified for his position by being physically unable to perform the essential functions of his job with or without accommodation.
After receiving the parties’ filings, the District Court issued an order sua sponte stating that "[t]he record contains no evidence (or argument) on the third element of plaintiff’s reasonable accommodation claim," i.e. , "whether or not plaintiff could perform [his job’s essential] functions with or without reasonable accommodation." Order, ECF No. 40, at 1. The order directed the parties "to supplement the record" and "advised [Hill] that he should (1) clearly describe the essential functions of the part-time job he held in September 2007 when he allegedly began requesting the accommodations at issue and (2) explain why he needed ‘the accommodation of an Aide’ and a relocation to a lower level room to perform the essential functions of the job.’ " Id. at 2. Hill responded with a fifteen-page supplemental submission explaining that "his physical disability substantially limited his ability to walk for long distances, stand for long periods of time (as required given that he supervised his classroom alone), ... [and] supervise[ ] outdoor play and scheduled student lavatory breaks on the basement floor ... without the hazard of pain and bruises." Pl. Supp. 3. Hill’s supplemental submission also stated that "he worked alone and suffered a gradual decline in strength and energy due to injury and fatigue from August ’07 - December ’08," id. at 4, and that he "performed all the DBA Program Aide job(s) ... alone, from August ’07 - December ’08, and experienced grave hardships in doing so," id. at 12.
In response, ARE argued that Hill admitted he was able to perform the essential functions of his job without accommodation, "but not without pain." Supplemental Brief for Defendant ("Def. Supp.") at 3, ECF No. 42. ARE’s supplemental submission did not argue that Hill was unqualified for his position or that the requested accommodations would cause ARE undue hardship. ARE, which was counseled, argued only that Hill did not make the accommodation requests and that he did not need the accommodations of a lower floor or classroom aide because he could perform the essential functions of his position, just with "pain."
The District Court granted summary judgment for ARE on Hill’s claims for hostile work environment and failure to accommodate by refusing to assign him a classroom aide, and denied summary judgment on Hill’s claim for failure to accommodate by refusing to assign him to a lower floor. Hill v. Assoc. for Renewal in Educ. , 69 F.Supp.3d 260, 267-68 (D.D.C. 2014). Regarding the claim for denial of a classroom aide, the District Court concluded Hill "ha[d] not adduced any evidence to show that an Aide would have been an effective means of addressing the limitations imposed by his amputated leg," and granted summary judgment because "when an employee seeks a workplace accommodation, the accommodation must be related to the limitation that rendered the person disabled." Id. at 268 (quoting Adams v. Rice , 531 F.3d 936, 944 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ).
Three of Hill’s ADA claims proceeded to trial. The jury found for Hill on his failure-to-accommodate claim for ARE’s refusal to assign him to a classroom on a lower floor, awarding him compensatory and punitive damages. ARE and Hill both moved to set aside the verdict, and the District Court denied both motions. Hill now appeals the District Court’s grant of summary judgment for ARE on his claims for hostile work environment and failure to accommodate by denying the request for a classroom aide.
This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo , viewing the "evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party" and drawing all reasonable inferences in his or her favor. Minter v. District of Columbia , 809 F.3d 66, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Breen v. Dep’t of Transp. , 282 F.3d 839, 841 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ). Summary judgment is appropriate only if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law," meaning that "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party," Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). We follow the general principle that "[a] document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed.’ " Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Service
...this court "follows the general principle that a document filed pro se is to be liberally construed." Hill v. Assocs. for Renewal in Educ., Inc. , 897 F.3d 232, 236 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). A. Whether Myers’s Petition was UntimelyIt is undisputed that the 30-day period in § 7623(b)(4)......
-
Adams v. Crestwood Med. Ctr.
...to constitute a reasonable accommodation.") (citing, inter alia , 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii) ); Hill v. Assocs. for Renewal in Educ. , 897 F.3d 232, 238 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ("[Defendant's] assertion that [Plaintiff] did not need the accommodation of a classroom aide because he could perform......
-
Richter v. Oakland Bd. of Educ.
...required adverse employment action, as we did for claims under the LAD in Royster and Caraballo. See, e.g., Hill v. Assocs. for Renewal in Educ., 897 F.3d 232, 237 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (stating that, in a failure-to-accommodate claim, "a plaintiff must show ... (1) that he or she has a disabili......
-
Exby-Stolley v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
...impose undue hardship on the employer." (emphases added) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) ))11 ; Hill v. Assocs. for Renewal in Educ., Inc. , 897 F.3d 232, 237 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (omitting an adverse-employment-action requirement from the prima facie case for a failure-to-accommodate claim......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...sufficiently allege that defendant acted “with [d]ishonesty of belief, purpose, or motive”); Hill v. Assocs. for Renewal in Educ., Inc., 897 F.3d 232, 236-37 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (court properly dismissed 1 of pro se plaintiff’s claims because, even after construing liberally, plaintiff did no......