Fink v. Richmond , 405 F. App'x 719 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-2216
    AUSTINE R. FINK,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JAMES E. RICHMOND, in his individual and official capacity;
    CHARLES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; KEITH A. HETTEL, in his
    individual and official capacity as Assistant Superintendant
    for Human Resources,
    Defendants – Appellees.
    --------------------------------------
    PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER; DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND
    DEFENSE FUND; AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY; AMERICAN CANCER
    SOCIETY CANCER ACTION NETWORK; MARYLAND DISABILITY LAW
    CENTER; LEGAL AID SOCIETY, EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER,
    Amici Supporting Appellant.
    No. 09-2269
    AUSTINE R. FINK,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES E. RICHMOND, in his individual and official capacity;
    CHARLES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; KEITH A. HETTEL, in his
    individual and official capacity as Assistant Superintendant
    for Human Resources,
    Defendants – Appellants.
    --------------------------------------
    PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER; DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND
    DEFENSE FUND; AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY; AMERICAN CANCER
    SOCIETY CANCER ACTION NETWORK; MARYLAND DISABILITY LAW
    CENTER; LEGAL AID SOCIETY, EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER,
    Amici Supporting Appellee.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
    of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
    (8:07-cv-00714-DKC)
    Argued:   October 28, 2010               Decided:   December 16, 2010
    Before KING, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ARGUED: Robert Scott Oswald, THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC,
    Washington, D.C., for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.    Leslie Robert
    Stellman, HODES, PESSIN & KATZ, PA, Towson, Maryland, for
    Appellees/Cross-Appellants.    ON BRIEF: David L. Scher, THE
    EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant/Cross-
    Appellee.    Amy Folsom Kett, HOGAN LOVELLS US, LLP, McLean,
    Virginia; Lisa Y. Settles, HODES, PESSIN & KATZ, PA, Towson,
    Maryland, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.     Monisha Cherayil,
    PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Amici Supporting
    Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Austine      Fink,       an    art    teacher     employed          by    the       Board   of
    Education of Charles County, Maryland (the Board), brought this
    action     against         the        Board    and    two   of        the        Board’s      school
    administrators         (collectively,           the     defendants).               Fink      alleged
    that the defendants, in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation
    Act of 1973, 
    29 U.S.C. § 794
    (a), and Title I and Title II of the
    Americans      with     Disabilities           Act   (ADA),      
    42 U.S.C. § 12101
       et
    seq.,     failed      to     accommodate         her     disability              and       retaliated
    against        her    after           she     requested     accommodations                   in     her
    employment.          The district court awarded summary judgment to the
    defendants and, upon our review, we affirm the district court’s
    judgment.
    I.
    Austine Fink has been employed by the Board since 1996.
    Between 1996 and 2006, Fink was an art teacher in the elementary
    and middle schools of Charles County.
    In March 2006, Fink was diagnosed with Barrett’s Esophagus
    with    High    Grade      Dysplasia.           Because     of    this       condition,           Fink
    underwent a surgical procedure during which her esophagus was
    removed and her stomach was relocated under her throat.                                           As a
    result of the surgery, Fink cannot bend over without vomiting.
    She also is unable to lift excessive weight or eat large meals.
    Additionally, Fink has frequent bowel movements and occasionally
    3
    experiences severe bouts of diarrhea.                     She is unable to walk
    long distances at a quick pace.
    After her surgery, Fink requested that the Board provide
    various    accommodations       in    her       working   conditions,   including
    frequent opportunities to eat small meals and to take bathroom
    breaks.    Fink also requested placement in a high school or an
    administrative position that did not require her to bend over to
    interact   with     students.        In   response     to   Fink’s   request,   the
    Board assigned Fink to teach art in a high school.
    In June 2007, Fink underwent surgery to repair a hernia.
    After   this   surgery,   Fink       requested      additional   accommodations,
    including, among others, assignment to a “fixed” classroom or to
    an office location close to a bathroom.
    The Board met with Fink the following month to discuss her
    accommodation requests for the upcoming school year.                    After the
    meeting, the Board assigned Fink to teach art at a high school
    with the following accommodations: 1) access to nearby bathrooms
    with the opportunity to obtain breaks on “short” notice; 2) the
    opportunity to eat snacks during instructional periods; 3) the
    absence of any homeroom or other non-instructional duties; 4)
    the absence of any requirement that she push a cart or lift
    heavy objects; 5) access to a locked area where she could keep
    her personal belongings; and 6) a                   coordinator and “back-up”
    coordinator    to    address     accommodation        concerns.       The   Board,
    4
    however, denied Fink’s request that she be assigned to a “fixed”
    classroom.
    Based on the Board’s refusal to grant all her requested
    accommodations, Fink did not return to work in October 2007.
    The Board thereafter informed Fink that she would be “charged”
    sick       and    personal       leave    for    her     absences    until    those    leave
    sources were exhausted, and that she would be placed on leave
    without pay for any additional absences.
    In July 2008, Fink requested and received a transfer within
    the    Charles          County    school    system       to    the   Robert    D.   Stethem
    Educational Center, where she was assigned a “fixed” classroom.
    Fink currently teaches art at this facility.
    In        her     complaint       filed    in     the    district      court,    Fink
    contended that the Board failed to reasonably accommodate her
    disability and retaliated against her by refusing to assign her
    to    teaching          positions    that       became    vacant     at   McDonough     High
    School and at Thomas Stone High School.                         Fink alleged that the
    Board assigned her to a less-suitable teaching position, which
    required her to teach substitute classes, Spanish classes, and
    “in-school retention,” 1 and did not permit her to have a “fixed”
    classroom.             Fink also alleged that the Board retaliated against
    1
    An “in-school retention” teaching assignment involved the
    supervision of students who were suspended from attending class.
    5
    her by withholding payment to her in December 2006 and January
    2007 and by placing her on administrative leave without pay in
    October 2007.
    II.
    The district court concluded that Fink is disabled, within
    the meaning of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, because her
    physical impairment substantially limits her ability to eat.                           As
    noted    by   the   district     court,      Fink    has    no     esophagus   and    her
    stomach is “quite small.”                 The district court observed that,
    therefore,     Fink    needs    to    eat    frequent       small    meals,    and    her
    condition      often   results       in   “excessive        diarrhea,    nausea,      and
    vomiting.”
    The      district   court       held,       however,   that     Fink’s    physical
    impairment does not substantially limit her ability to walk,
    because her condition “only affects her ability to walk quickly
    or for long distances.”               The district court further observed
    that, at the time Fink filed her claim, the acts of “bending and
    lifting” were not “major life activities,” within the meaning of
    the ADA.       The district court explained that although the ADA
    Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 
    122 Stat. 3553
    ,
    added     “bending     and     lifting”      to     the     list    of   “major      life
    activities,” those amendments did not have retroactive effect
    and, therefore, did not apply to Fink’s case.
    6
    After concluding that Fink was disabled because of eating
    limitations         resulting       from       the     surgical        relocation      of     her
    stomach,      the       district       court    held    that       the      Board   reasonably
    accommodated Fink’s disability.                       The district court explained
    that    the    Board       is      “only       required       to    offer      a    reasonable
    accommodation,            not      the       perfect       or         [Fink’s]        preferred
    accommodation.”             Accordingly,         the     district           court   held     that
    Fink’s placement as a full-time art teacher in a high school
    “satisfied [the Board’s] duty to reasonably accommodate [Fink]
    regardless of her desire for a different placement.”
    The    district          court    also        addressed        the    Board’s       action
    assigning Fink to non-teaching duties in the spring of 2007.
    The    district         court    concluded       this     objection          lodged    by    Fink
    amounted      to    a    mere    job     complaint,       rather       than    a    failure    to
    provide      reasonable         accommodations.            The      district        court    also
    rejected      Fink’s      claim     that       the    Board     was      required     to    grant
    Fink’s request for a “fixed” classroom in order to accommodate
    her need to eat frequent meals and take regular bathroom breaks.
    The district court held that the Board reasonably accommodated
    Fink   by     permitting         her    to     eat    during       class     periods    and    by
    assigning her to teach in classrooms that were located close to
    bathrooms.
    The district court also granted summary judgment to the
    defendants         on   Fink’s     retaliation         claim,       concluding        that    the
    7
    defendants presented non-discriminatory reasons for withholding
    payment to Fink for the period at issue.                      The district court
    stated    that     the     defendants      withheld      payment     to    Fink     from
    December 2006 through February 2007 based on a calculation error
    regarding Fink’s sick leave, and that the defendants placed Fink
    on   administrative        leave    without      pay    because   Fink    refused     to
    return to work in October 2007.                  As explained by the district
    court,    Fink    failed    to     show   that    the   defendants’       reasons    for
    withholding payment to her were pretextual. 2                 The district court
    also held that Fink failed to show that the defendants’ refusal
    to assign her to the teaching positions at Thomas Stone High
    School    and     McDonough        High    School       constituted       an   adverse
    employment       action.      Fink    timely      appealed    from    the      district
    court’s judgment. 3
    2
    In addition, the district court held that the Eleventh
    Amendment does not bar Fink’s claims, and that Title II of the
    ADA applies to this case. The Board challenges these rulings in
    its cross-appeal, stating that we should address the Board’s
    arguments only if the Court reverses any aspect of the district
    court’s judgment.   In view of our decision affirming the award
    of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, we do not
    address those issues.
    3
    Fink challenges the district court’s grant of summary
    judgment as to her claims under Title II of the ADA. Fink does
    not appeal the district court’s judgment on her claims under
    Title I of the ADA.
    8
    III.
    We review the district court’s award of summary judgment de
    novo.     Waller v. City of Danville, 
    556 F.3d 171
    , 174 (4th Cir.
    2009).     When an employee is “disabled,” within the meaning of
    the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, an employer must provide
    “reasonable accommodations” to the disabled employee unless the
    employer     can        demonstrate     that        the    provision      of     such
    accommodations would impose an “undue hardship.”                     EEOC v. Sara
    Lee Corp., 
    237 F.3d 349
    , 353 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting 
    42 U.S.C. § 12112
    (b)(5)(A)); see Doe v. Univ. of Md. Medical Sys. Corp.,
    
    50 F.3d 1261
    , 1264 n.9 (4th Cir. 1995) (explaining that the same
    elements apply to the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act).
    Importantly, however, the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act do not
    require    that    an    employer    provide    a    disabled   employee       with   a
    perfect accommodation or an accommodation most preferable to the
    employee.    See Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 
    95 F.3d 492
    , 499
    (7th Cir. 1996).
    We    have    reviewed    the    record,       the   briefs,   and   arguments
    presented by the parties in this appeal.                  Based on the thorough
    reasons articulated by the district court, we hold that Fink
    failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the
    accommodations that the Board provided for her disability, and
    that those accommodations were reasonable and sufficient under
    9
    the controlling requirements of the ADA and the Rehabilitation
    Act.    See Sara Lee Corp., 
    237 F.3d at 350
    .
    We    also   agree       with   the    district      court’s    reasoning     in
    awarding      summary       judgment         to    the    defendants      on     Fink’s
    retaliation claims.             Fink failed to present evidence that the
    defendants gave a pretextual explanation for withholding payment
    to Fink for the brief period at issue.                       Fink also failed to
    present evidence that the defendants’ refusal to consider her
    for    two   teaching      vacancies    constituted        an   adverse   employment
    action.      We therefore affirm the award of summary judgment to
    the defendants based on the reasoning provided by the district
    court.       See    Fink   v.    Richmond,        No.   8:07-cv-00714-DCK      (D.   Md.
    Sept. 29, 2009).
    AFFIRMED
    10
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-2216, 09-2269

Citation Numbers: 405 F. App'x 719

Judges: King, Davis, Keenan

Filed Date: 12/16/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024