While this Pavela Report deals with Disability Law issues, I want to take a brief detour (especially for the non-lawyers in the class) to look at terminology (which still confuses me) and broad thoughts about “reasonable accommodations” to get everyone on the same page as we discuss the merits of the case… (just in case anyone didn’t have enough to blog about with 6 online discussions this week!)
1. Was Ekstand constructively discharged? Why/why not?
Constructive discharge - “Intolerable conditions may yield claims for constructive discharge. When a person quits her job rather than put up with sexual harassment, she may have a claim for constructive discharge. Most courts say that if a supervisor deliberately makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would be forced to resign, then that person will be treated as if she had been fired, and she can bring an action against the company.” (http://www.uslaw.com/library/article/bshConstructiveDischarge.html)
2. Did the school district fail to provide “reasonable accommodations?” Why/why not? (Note: “prior to November 28, 2005 Ekstand never provided the school district with evidence other than her own conclusory remarks that natural light was necessary to accommodate her…”)
3. Was the court correct in entering a summary judgment on the reasonable accommodation issue and the constructive discharge complaint? Why/why not? Summary Judgment: “A procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to judgment as a Matter of Law.” (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Summary+Judgment)
No, I do not believe that the teacher was constructively discharged when the school was making effort to accommodate various requests, even if they failed to make the classroom change by the time she left. The legal tests seem to require a sense of intentionality behind the creation of a hostile working by the employer and nothing in the description suggests that was happening.
Regarding whether the school failed to provide reasonable accomodations, it does seem that the school had options for accommodating the natural light need, which would not impose an undue hardship on the school. The date of November 28th does not appear to be relevant since there was notice to the school of a Doctor recommended accommodation request a few weeks before school started and the school had two classroom options that would address the teacher’s need. There is nothing in the description of the case that suggests that the school would have trouble accommodating this need – it more appears that they had made several other minor accommodations and it can be assumed that the last request for a classroom with natural light might have been the school’s attempt to draw the line. With that being said – the request for another classroom with natural light could be seen as a reasonable accommodation on its own, but maybe not when considered with the totality of other requests made. This doesn’t seem to be considered by the Courts but I believe it is a valid exploration. Is it reasonable to request attention to: noise distractions from the adjacent commons area, inadequate ventilation, inadequate light bulbs, bulletin boards, maps, a desk, an overhead projector screen, a locking cabinet, a nameplate, AND a classroom with natural light? Maybe it is the list that could make it unreasonable.
And concerning the summary judgments, I believe the Circuit Court was right to grant summary judgment regarding the constructive discharge since there is no controversy of fact, and the Court could judiciously apply the legal test to determine that the undisputed facts did not meet the standard. I also believe overturning the summary judgment regarding whether a reasonable accommodation was warranted was a good procedural decision because there are enough factors for a jury to deliberate on for the determination.
Jennifer, thanks for your insight and I absolutely agree with you. Perhaps if Ekstand would have presented her "accommodation" for natural light (with documentation) first, it would never have been an issue and something the school administration would have seen as a reasonable accommodation. At what point does an accommodation request(s) become unreasonable for the insitution?
Regarding reasonable accomodations, it is clear the school did not do everything within their power to assist Ekstrand with requests made by her and the psychologist. As the court noted, the cost-benefit analysis of providing the accomodations vs. the expense of a lawsuit pales in comparison. However, I do challenge whether a slippery slope would have ensued with the laundry list of requests made by Ms. Ekstrand. While I am not a psychologist, but do believe people can have "depressive symptoms" and still function, it appears that Ms. Ekstrand's condition went beyond "depressive symptoms" and she could have been temporarily disabled, negating the need for reasonable accomodations altogether.
I truly wonder what "else" was going on, as on the face of this case it makes no sense why the school did not move her classroom. Was she the employee that always "complained" and did the school just get fed up with all her demands and finally draw "the line in the sand?"
From my understanding with the readings and with this case about providing "reasonable accommodations", the essence of the argument lies with effective communication. If the person requesting "reasonable accommodations" makes it known and communicates his/her needs properly then the other party should comply with the request if it does not cause a massive financial burden. I felt that Ekstrand communicated effectively and proactively her needs and maintained the debate as her condition deteriorated. I do not believe her request was unreasonable regarding a classroom with a window that provided natural light and I do not feel that having her move to a more suitable classroom that was already vacant would have cost a great deal of money. The only issue I seek clarification on is how her voluntary decision to leave this position affected the case.
The "reasonable accomodation" piece is probably easier to discuss than the "constructive discharge" (which honestly I still don't fully understand either)
The point of the accommodation is that up until providing the school with medical documentation (November 28, 2005) Ekstand had not provided her employer with "medical necessity" of a room switch... it was only another laundry list item request. The timeline was a little confusing as well: Oct. 17, 2005 sought medical attention - went on medical leave and never returned. Nov. 28, 2005 provided medical documentation regarding needing natural light (a therapy that is not "widely known as a necessary treatment: for her claimed disorder. So in my "lay person" view the employer had no duty to change classrooms until after this documentation.
Her "voluntary" decision to leave affected the case as she was claiming "constructive discharge" - that her working conditions were so intolerable that she was forced to quit. Although reading the case (again and again) it seems she found another teaching job at the university level(less stressful?) in 2006 - the lawsuit was not until February 2008.
I think the bigger issue is one of if her disability actually would qualify her under ADA to receive accommodations or perhaps if as Jennifer states - had she just kept complaining and been viewed as a complainer and therefore the school said enough is enough?
This is an interesting case. If the school had accommodated the room change to begin with, would there have even been a laundry list of complaints? This might have solved the whole issue. I wonder if she could even go so far as to claim emotional and mental distress, in addition to everything else.
I don’t think she was constructively discharged because I don’t see any evidence that her supervisor ‘deliberately’ made her working conditions so intolerable that she was forced to resign. If we remember, Ms. Ekstand was successful for five years at that same school teaching kindergarten students. SHE made the request to switch her teaching assignment away from the kindergarten class where she had a room with natural light; her supervisors didn’t reassign her.
I probably shouldn’t say this, but cases like this seem frivolous to me. I don’t dispute that Ms. Ekstand has a recognized DSM disorder, but I do question how much effort she put into managing it herself. At what point should she have accepted responsibility for dealing with her own issue especially because she initiated this change of situation? I am really curious why Ms. Ekstand, who seemed to be well aware of her seasonal affective disorder (SAD) and the issues it caused her, did not investigate and discuss the room situation more thoroughly with her supervisor BEFORE she requested and accepted the position with the first grade class.
I further question her sole reliance on natural light to address the symptoms of her SAD. SAD is cyclical; meaning that it is worse in some seasons and better in others (typically fall and winter sees an increase in symptoms and spring and summer sees a decrease in symptoms). Beside natural light, treatment for this particular disorder also includes other options such as phototherapy (light therapy), medications and psychotherapy. Phototherapy mimics outdoor light and can be delivered simply and without side effects from a simple light box. Her doctor could have (and it sounds like he/she should have) prescribed antidepressant medication since her symptoms appear to be in the severe range. Psychotherapy is another treatment option that has been proven useful in identifying and changing negative thoughts and behaviors that can make sufferers feel worse. Additionally, psychotherapy provides healthy ways to cope with the disorder and manage stress.
As a parent, I would have been terrified to have someone who was exhibiting the symptoms Ms. Ekstand stated she was experiencing in charge of my child and a room full of 6 and 7 year olds. That doesn’t sound like a particularly safe situation for either the students or the school.
I’m with Jennifer and Ken on this one. It sounds like Ms. Ekstand may have given herself the label of ‘chronic complainer’ by identifying a laundry list of issues (ambient noise, installation of educational necessities, etc.) that impaired her but were the same or similar to those that other teachers experienced routinely or at one time or another in their classrooms. Since there is no mention of Ms. Ekstand’s attempts to manage her disorder with her physician or psychotherapist, it’s hard to know how much effort she put into taking care of herself. If she chose not to seek additional therapies, then I’m not sure why the school should be solely responsible for doing so.
While I don’t disagree with any of you in that Ms. Ekstrand had a responsibility to take care of herself, inform the school of her disability with adequate documentation, and avoid being an irritating complainer, I’m considering a different aspect of relational concern. I’m concerned with the school district’s response of providing the minimal accommodation that would not be too much of an inconvenience or expense to them. Despite the fact that this teacher may have been a habitual “whiner”, I’m thinking that her successful track record from 2000-2005 could have been enough motivation for the district to attempt to meet her needs in the best interest of her health and success as a team member in Somerset School District. The district had every legal right to respond as they did but I question whether or not a legal right justifies an ethical responsibility. Just a thought!
Thanks everyone for a good discussion this week. Part of me still wrestles with Edna's comment of ethical action and just move Ekstand and lawsuit avoided... but I am sure there are other "factors" that came into play...While I am sure that there are also many alternative treatments to her alleged disorder... I think that the real winners of the case were the kindergarten students who NO LONGER will be in contact with her... she now is just one of many "strange" college faculty members (sorry, too easy and I couldn't resist!) -- Again, thanks for playing this week! Ken
While this Pavela Report deals with Disability Law issues, I want to take a brief detour (especially for the non-lawyers in the class) to look at terminology (which still confuses me) and broad thoughts about “reasonable accommodations” to get everyone on the same page as we discuss the merits of the case… (just in case anyone didn’t have enough to blog about with 6 online discussions this week!)
ReplyDelete1. Was Ekstand constructively discharged? Why/why not?
Constructive discharge - “Intolerable conditions may yield claims for constructive discharge. When a person quits her job rather than put up with sexual harassment, she may have a claim for constructive discharge. Most courts say that if a supervisor deliberately makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would be forced to resign, then that person will be treated as if she had been fired, and she can bring an action against the company.” (http://www.uslaw.com/library/article/bshConstructiveDischarge.html)
2. Did the school district fail to provide “reasonable accommodations?” Why/why not?
(Note: “prior to November 28, 2005 Ekstand never provided the school district with evidence other than her own conclusory remarks that natural light was necessary to accommodate her…”)
3. Was the court correct in entering a summary judgment on the reasonable accommodation issue and the constructive discharge complaint? Why/why not?
Summary Judgment: “A procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to judgment as a Matter of Law.” (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Summary+Judgment)
No, I do not believe that the teacher was constructively discharged when the school was making effort to accommodate various requests, even if they failed to make the classroom change by the time she left. The legal tests seem to require a sense of intentionality behind the creation of a hostile working by the employer and nothing in the description suggests that was happening.
ReplyDeleteRegarding whether the school failed to provide reasonable accomodations, it does seem that the school had options for accommodating the natural light need, which would not impose an undue hardship on the school. The date of November 28th does not appear to be relevant since there was notice to the school of a Doctor recommended accommodation request a few weeks before school started and the school had two classroom options that would address the teacher’s need. There is nothing in the description of the case that suggests that the school would have trouble accommodating this need – it more appears that they had made several other minor accommodations and it can be assumed that the last request for a classroom with natural light might have been the school’s attempt to draw the line. With that being said – the request for another classroom with natural light could be seen as a reasonable accommodation on its own, but maybe not when considered with the totality of other requests made. This doesn’t seem to be considered by the Courts but I believe it is a valid exploration. Is it reasonable to request attention to: noise distractions from the adjacent commons area, inadequate ventilation, inadequate light bulbs, bulletin boards, maps, a desk, an overhead projector screen, a locking cabinet, a nameplate, AND a classroom with natural light? Maybe it is the list that could make it unreasonable.
And concerning the summary judgments, I believe the Circuit Court was right to grant summary judgment regarding the constructive discharge since there is no controversy of fact, and the Court could judiciously apply the legal test to determine that the undisputed facts did not meet the standard. I also believe overturning the summary judgment regarding whether a reasonable accommodation was warranted was a good procedural decision because there are enough factors for a jury to deliberate on for the determination.
Jennifer, thanks for your insight and I absolutely agree with you. Perhaps if Ekstand would have presented her "accommodation" for natural light (with documentation) first, it would never have been an issue and something the school administration would have seen as a reasonable accommodation. At what point does an accommodation request(s) become unreasonable for the insitution?
ReplyDeleteRegarding reasonable accomodations, it is clear the school did not do everything within their power to assist Ekstrand with requests made by her and the psychologist. As the court noted, the cost-benefit analysis of providing the accomodations vs. the expense of a lawsuit pales in comparison. However, I do challenge whether a slippery slope would have ensued with the laundry list of requests made by Ms. Ekstrand. While I am not a psychologist, but do believe people can have "depressive symptoms" and still function, it appears that Ms. Ekstrand's condition went beyond "depressive symptoms" and she could have been temporarily disabled, negating the need for reasonable accomodations altogether.
ReplyDeleteI truly wonder what "else" was going on, as on the face of this case it makes no sense why the school did not move her classroom. Was she the employee that always "complained" and did the school just get fed up with all her demands and finally draw "the line in the sand?"
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding with the readings and with this case about providing "reasonable accommodations", the essence of the argument lies with effective communication. If the person requesting "reasonable accommodations" makes it known and communicates his/her needs properly then the other party should comply with the request if it does not cause a massive financial burden. I felt that Ekstrand communicated effectively and proactively her needs and maintained the debate as her condition deteriorated. I do not believe her request was unreasonable regarding a classroom with a window that provided natural light and I do not feel that having her move to a more suitable classroom that was already vacant would have cost a great deal of money. The only issue I seek clarification on is how her voluntary decision to leave this position affected the case.
ReplyDeleteThe "reasonable accomodation" piece is probably easier to discuss than the "constructive discharge" (which honestly I still don't fully understand either)
ReplyDeleteThe point of the accommodation is that up until providing the school with medical documentation (November 28, 2005) Ekstand had not provided her employer with "medical necessity" of a room switch... it was only another laundry list item request. The timeline was a little confusing as well:
Oct. 17, 2005 sought medical attention - went on medical leave and never returned.
Nov. 28, 2005 provided medical documentation regarding needing natural light (a therapy that is not "widely known as a necessary treatment: for her claimed disorder. So in my "lay person" view the employer had no duty to change classrooms until after this documentation.
Her "voluntary" decision to leave affected the case as she was claiming "constructive discharge" - that her working conditions were so intolerable that she was forced to quit. Although reading the case (again and again) it seems she found another teaching job at the university level(less stressful?) in 2006 - the lawsuit was not until February 2008.
I think the bigger issue is one of if her disability actually would qualify her under ADA to receive accommodations or perhaps if as Jennifer states - had she just kept complaining and been viewed as a complainer and therefore the school said enough is enough?
This is an interesting case. If the school had accommodated the room change to begin with, would there have even been a laundry list of complaints? This might have solved the whole issue. I wonder if she could even go so far as to claim emotional and mental distress, in addition to everything else.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think she was constructively discharged because I don’t see any evidence that her supervisor ‘deliberately’ made her working conditions so intolerable that she was forced to resign. If we remember, Ms. Ekstand was successful for five years at that same school teaching kindergarten students. SHE made the request to switch her teaching assignment away from the kindergarten class where she had a room with natural light; her supervisors didn’t reassign her.
ReplyDeleteI probably shouldn’t say this, but cases like this seem frivolous to me. I don’t dispute that Ms. Ekstand has a recognized DSM disorder, but I do question how much effort she put into managing it herself. At what point should she have accepted responsibility for dealing with her own issue especially because she initiated this change of situation? I am really curious why Ms. Ekstand, who seemed to be well aware of her seasonal affective disorder (SAD) and the issues it caused her, did not investigate and discuss the room situation more thoroughly with her supervisor BEFORE she requested and accepted the position with the first grade class.
I further question her sole reliance on natural light to address the symptoms of her SAD. SAD is cyclical; meaning that it is worse in some seasons and better in others (typically fall and winter sees an increase in symptoms and spring and summer sees a decrease in symptoms). Beside natural light, treatment for this particular disorder also includes other options such as phototherapy (light therapy), medications and psychotherapy. Phototherapy mimics outdoor light and can be delivered simply and without side effects from a simple light box. Her doctor could have (and it sounds like he/she should have) prescribed antidepressant medication since her symptoms appear to be in the severe range. Psychotherapy is another treatment option that has been proven useful in identifying and changing negative thoughts and behaviors that can make sufferers feel worse. Additionally, psychotherapy provides healthy ways to cope with the disorder and manage stress.
As a parent, I would have been terrified to have someone who was exhibiting the symptoms Ms. Ekstand stated she was experiencing in charge of my child and a room full of 6 and 7 year olds. That doesn’t sound like a particularly safe situation for either the students or the school.
I’m with Jennifer and Ken on this one. It sounds like Ms. Ekstand may have given herself the label of ‘chronic complainer’ by identifying a laundry list of issues (ambient noise, installation of educational necessities, etc.) that impaired her but were the same or similar to those that other teachers experienced routinely or at one time or another in their classrooms. Since there is no mention of Ms. Ekstand’s attempts to manage her disorder with her physician or psychotherapist, it’s hard to know how much effort she put into taking care of herself. If she chose not to seek additional therapies, then I’m not sure why the school should be solely responsible for doing so.
While I don’t disagree with any of you in that Ms. Ekstrand had a responsibility to take care of herself, inform the school of her disability with adequate documentation, and avoid being an irritating complainer, I’m considering a different aspect of relational concern. I’m concerned with the school district’s response of providing the minimal accommodation that would not be too much of an inconvenience or expense to them. Despite the fact that this teacher may have been a habitual “whiner”, I’m thinking that her successful track record from 2000-2005 could have been enough motivation for the district to attempt to meet her needs in the best interest of her health and success as a team member in Somerset School District. The district had every legal right to respond as they did but I question whether or not a legal right justifies an ethical responsibility. Just a thought!
ReplyDeleteThanks everyone for a good discussion this week. Part of me still wrestles with Edna's comment of ethical action and just move Ekstand and lawsuit avoided... but I am sure there are other "factors" that came into play...While I am sure that there are also many alternative treatments to her alleged disorder... I think that the real winners of the case were the kindergarten students who NO LONGER will be in contact with her... she now is just one of many "strange" college faculty members (sorry, too easy and I couldn't resist!) -- Again, thanks for playing this week! Ken
ReplyDelete