Court Rejects ADA Claim By Diabetic Transferred From Director of Pre-K to Dean of Students
A diabetic school district employee transferred from Director of Pre-K and Student Services to Dean of Students at a district middle school lacks a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), a federal district court ruled on July 2, 2010.
In Williams v. Brunswick County Board of Education, plaintiff Lorne Williams alleged that upon requesting 6-month medical leave due to “diabetic levels” in 2007, the Board transferred her to the position of Dean of Students at Shallotte Middle School, violating the ADA. To set forth a claim for ADA discrimination, Williams had to demonstrate, among other things, that she was “disabled” within the meaning of the ADA, and that the Board took an “adverse employment action” against her because of that disability. On the Board’s motion for summary judgment, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina rejected Williams’ ADA discrimination claim for two primary reasons.
First, applying the pre-January 1, 2009 definition of “disabled,” the court found Williams’ diabetes did not give rise to protected status under the ADA. Notably, under the new definition of “disability” established by the ADA Amendments Acts of 2008, Williams may have qualified as a disabled individual. For more information, see our prior blogpost on the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
Second, the court rejected Williams’ contention that the transfer from Director of Pre-K and Student Services to Dean of Students at Shallotte Middle School constituted an “adverse employment action” for purposes of her discrimination claim. The court determined that because the transfer came with no change in pay, benefits, or seniority, the move could not rise to the level of an “adverse employment action.” The court expressly rejected Williams’ argument that the broader definition of “adverse employment action” established in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Burlington Northern v. White applied. In Burlington, the Court held that in Title VII retaliation claims, an employment action is “adverse” if it “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” However, the district court in Williams v. Brunswick County Board of Education found that broader definition to be limited to the context of retaliation claims, and therefore inapplicable to Williams’ ADA discrimination claim.
In a more cursory fashion, the court also rejected Williams’ ADA retaliation claim, finding no evidence of adverse action even under the more lenient Burlington Northern v. White standard, largely because the Board actually granted Williams her requested 6-month medical leave.
