How the Americans with Disabilities Act Protects Workers

Case Analysis Paper

Case #1: Weaver v. Nebo School District, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (D. Utah 1998) (p. 557)

Parties: The Plaintiff in this case was Wendy Weaver and the defendants included the Nebo School District (a public school district in the southern part of Utah County) as well as Robert Wadley, Almon Mosher, Larry Kimball, Denis Poulsen, and multiple “Does.”

Facts: The Plaintiff was employed as a teacher with the Nebo School District who also coached the school’s girls’ volleyball team for which she received a stipend. The incumbent coach was typically selected for the position, but the Plaintiff claimed she was denied a renewal of her coaching position due solely to her voluntary admission that she was a homosexual.

Issue: The Plaintiff’s claims in this case were as follow: 1) correspondence from the school administrator to her dated July 22 and October 29, most especially the restrictions on her speech, were vague and overbroad and operated to restrain her speech which was constitutionally protected; and, 2) the school’s decision to remove her as volleyball coach and failure to rehire her for another seasons was based on her sexual orientation only, an impermissible reason which was violative of the 14th Amendment.

Applicable Law(s): The applicable law in this case was the 1st Amendment’s protections of free speech and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment which prohibits discrimination based, in part, on sexual orientation (Covais, 2022).

Holding: The Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in this case was granted and the Defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied, and the school was ordered to remove the objectionable correspondence from her personnel file.

Reasoning: The court reasoned that the community’s animus towards homosexuals did not override the Plaintiff’s 1st and 14th Amendment protections.

Case Questions:

Case Question #1: What would you have done if you had been the school administrator receiving calls in this situation? As indicated in Note #1: “The word "gay" is used in the vernacular of this age. A similar inquiry put in the Nineteenth Century would reflect an entirely different status or characteristic,” and I would agree that antiquated views about homosexuality and animus in the community should be allowed to discriminate against the Plaintiff.

Case Question #2: Do you think the school was correct in ignoring the teacher’s record? The school did not ignore the Plaintiff’s teaching record so much as it assigned a higher priority to satisfying the concerns of students and parents.

Case Question #3: Does it make a difference that this matter did not arise at the teacher’s instigation but in response to a question from a student? Explain. The Plaintiff’s response to the verbal question from a student concerning the Plaintiff’s sexual orientation was inappropriate and should not have been answered at all as part of school district policy, especially since this is the proximate cause of the lawsuit. The student’s inappropriate question was analogous to a student asking teachers if they like to molest little children or if they beat their spouse. In sum, the Plaintiff’s response was offered almost eagerly, and the Plaintiff had every opportunity to decline to answer based on the inappropriateness of the interrogatory.

Conclusion: The Plaintiff’s fundamental 1st Amendment rights to constitutionally protected speech were violated by the school administrator in this case, and the court’s decision to grant her summary judgment was aligned with the provisions of the 14th Amendment.

Case #2: Macy v. Holder, Appeal No. 0120120821 (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Apr. 20, 2012), p. 559

Parties: The Appellant in this case was Mia Macy (a male transitioning to female) and the Appellee was the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“the Agency”) and its then-acting director, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Facts: The Appellant alleged that the Agency unlawfully discriminated against her by denying a promised job after learning that she was transgender, a position for which she applied as a man. Pursuant to internal Agency policy, the Appellant’s complaint was divided into several claims: 1) discrimination based on sex, 2) gender identity and sex stereotyping, and, 3) transgender status. The Agency determined that only the sex-discrimination claim could be referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”) but the other two could be reviewed internally for resolution, a process that did not provide for a hearing. Moreover, the remedies available to the Agency were more limited than those available from the Commission and the Appellant claimed that the Agency had improperly determined that her other claims did not constitute sex discrimination.

Issue: The Appellant maintained that the Commission had the appropriate jurisdiction for all of her claims and the Commission should therefore investigate all three of her charges of sex-based discrimination.

Applicable Law(s): The 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation which includes the transitioning period and culmination of acquiring a different gender.

Holding: The Commission’s decision was not an attempt to resolve the Appellant’s original claims but rather its holding was that all three of the Appellant’s claims were subject to adjudication pursuant to the provisions of Title VII and should therefore be remanded to the Agency for additional processing as a Title VII sex discrimination claim.

Reasoning: The Commission viewed Appellant’s claim that she was denied a position that was previously promised her when she was a man favorably.

Case Questions:

This was a very important decision by the EEOC because it changed its previous position. Do you understand the agency’s analysis of why it held as it did in the decision? Negative stereotypes and longstanding and biases against Americans who choose to pursue what they regard as their true gender cannot be allowed to rise to the level of sex discrimination in the workplace.

Do you understand why the prospective employer may have been concerned and made the decision it did? Explain. Given the high stakes of the Agency’s mission, it is reasonable to posit that it was concerned about the mental stability of the Appellant during this transformative period in her life.

Given the evolution of the law as set forth by the EEOC, do you agree with the EEOC’s conclusion? Yes, an individual who transitions from one gender to the other still has the same Social Security number, background, experience and so forth.

Conclusion: The Commission decided correctly in consolidating all three of the Appellant’s claims as sex-based discrimination that were subject to adjudication pursuant to Title VII.

Case #3: Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, No. 15-1720 (7th Cir. 2017), p. 564

Parties: The Plaintiff-Appellant in this case was Kimberly Hively, an openly lesbian, part-time adjunct professor, and the Defendant-Appellee was Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana.

Facts: Despite repeated applications to obtain full-time employment with Ivy Tech, the Plaintiff-Appellant was turned down and eventually had her contract cancelled (Corcoran, 2018). Following her filing of a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana where it was dismissed for failing to state a specific claim since sex-discrimination claims were treated differently from sexual- orientation claims.

Issue: This issue in this case was a “pure question of statutory interpretation” and the Plaintiff-Appellant’s rejection of heterosexual norms and conformity with traditional female stereotypes.

Applicable Law(s): Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Holding: The Seventh Circuit Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination.

Reasoning: The text of Title VII specifically states that sex only needs to be a “motivating factor” in order to identify cases of sex discrimination and sex is a perquisite for employer sexual-orientation discrimination.

Case Questions:

Do you understand why the college would not hire Kimberly Hively? Explain. No, the reasoning passes understanding in an enlightened society.

Do you understand the court’s reasoning for the decision? Yes, just because Congress could not anticipate every possible contingency that could arise did not prevent the application of the protections of Title VII to the Plaintiff-Appellant’s case.

What would you have done had you been the college administrator who was faced with this decision? Explain. The decision to whether to hire the Plaintiff-Appellant would have been based strictly on qualifications and merit.

Conclusion: Times change and so too do the protections afforded by Title VII.

Case #4: Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001). p. 566

Parties: The Plaintiff in this case was Antonio Sanchez and the Defendant was Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc. (“Azteca”)

Facts: In response to a claimed hostile work environment based on his male coworkers’ and a male supervisor’s harassment concerning his effeminate appearance, mannerisms and behaviors (including even how he carried a food try), the Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Azteca, claiming gender-based harassment. In addition, the Plaintiff claimed he was fired as a result of opposing this workplace harassment.

Issue: Was the conduct of the Plaintiff’s male co-workers and male supervisor violative of Title VII by creating a hostile environment?

Applicable Law(s): Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination

Holding: Upon review, an appellate court held that a reasonable man would have likewise viewed the relentless, severe harassment by his male co-workers and a male supervisor violated the Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII.

Reasoning: The district court’s original decision to deny the Plaintiff’s claims were inexplicable given the severity of the abuse to which he was subjected, a reality acknowledged by the appellate court.

Case Questions:

Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. How would you characterize this case? Do you see the discrimination as being based on sexual orientation and thus not protected by Title VII or as based on gender and thus protected by Title VII? The Plaintiff’s gender-based claims were held to be protected by the expanded interpretation of the provisions of Title VII similar to fact situation in Hively above.

Why do you think the managers did not address the employee’s complaints? Despite the potential financial impact of a gender-based discrimination claim, Azteca’s managers were likely unwilling to threaten their own sense of machismo by even giving the appearance of approving of the Plaintiff’s effeminate appearance, mannerisms and behaviors.

What would you have done differently here if you had been Sanchez’s manager? In coordination with Azteca’s human resource department, I would have thoroughly investigated the Plaintiff’s claims and taken action to remedy them, including warning his co-workers and supervisor that any further such actions would be grounds for termination.

Conclusion: This case underscored the importance of ensuring Title VII protections are applied during a period in history when the concept of gender is undergoing profound changes.

Case #5: Jane Doe v. Boeing Company, 121 Wash.2d 8 (1993), p. 568

Parties: The unnamed Plaintiff in this case was Jane Doe and the Defendant was the Boeing Company.

Facts: Hired by Boeing in 1978 as a software engineer, Jane Doe was a biological male and indicated this status on his employment application. Six years later, Doe sought professional help concerning his gender and his physician diagnosed him as suffering from gender dysphoric. Following a series of physician-prescribed hormone and electrolysis treatments, Doe legally changed his name to a feminine version in April 1984. A year later, Doe advised Boeing management and her coworkers of her condition and intention to undergo sex reassignment surgery as well as her belief, based on consultations and advice from her physician, that she must assume the social role of a female for one full year in order to qualify for the procedure. In response, Boeing management advised Doe that although she could not use the women’s restrooms at work or dress in feminine attire while still an anatomical male, she could so after completion of the surgery; however, Boeing noted that pursuant to an unwritten policy that was also applied to other transexuals in the organization, Doe was allowed to wear the company-prescribed unisex uniform at work but not to wear any clothing that was obviously designed for females. During a 4-month period in late 1985, about a dozen complaints about Doe were received by Boeing management concerning her use of the women’s restrooms and female attire. In response to the complaints, Boeing management issued Doe warnings concerning future violations, caution her that termination would result if egregious violations were reported and allowed her a grace period for supervisory observation. Subsequently, Doe’s supervisor cited her addition of a string of pink pearls to her unisex uniform which she refused to take off on two occasions as being willfully violative of Boeing’s policy and she was terminated.

Applicable Law(s): Washington state’s Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60

Holding: The Plaintiff sued Boeing for handicap discrimination and on appeal and cross-appeal, the Defendant was held to have exercised reasonable accommodation for Doe throughout his/her sex transition.

Issue: The two issues involved in this case were: 1) did Doe’s condition rise to the level of a legal “handicap” and, 2) did the Defendant provide the Plaintiff with reasonable accommodations for her transsexual transition into a female.

Reasoning: In reality, Boeing management bent over backwards trying to accommodate Doe’s transition, and the record makes it clear that she pushed the company beyond its legal limits in willfully disregarding its clothing policy.

Case Questions:

What do you think the real problem was here? If you say that it was Jane trying to push too hard, explore what that really means. How responsible should the employer be for the discomfort of other employees? What about when the discomfort arises from long-held beliefs based on misinformation, which society may have taken for granted until now? Would it be different if the issue was race instead of sexual orientation (that is, employees did not want to deal with employees of other races in the workplace and were uncomfortable doing so)? Explain. The private sector is not responsible for the conduct or outcomes of social experiments, and the real problem in this case was Doe’s willful violation of the rules that were applicable to all Boeing employees. Americans do not mind if everyone shares the same rights, but they bristle when some people try to attain more than their fair share through questionable means.

Are you surprised that Boeing had eight other employees to deal with on this issue? Explain. Are you surprised that an employer dealt with this issue with the depth that Boeing did? Why do you think it did so? At present, Boeing has more than 141,000 employees (Boeing: Number of Employees, 2022) and it is likely that this company had a comparable number of employees in 1985 when the Cold War was still hot. Nevertheless, it was surprising that so many people were willing to weather the frequently violent social storm that being a transexual in 1985 entailed.

Doe evidently kept going to the female toilet, but it was the pink pearls that got her fired. Any thoughts as to why? Explain. Wearing a strand of pink pearls was tantamount to Doe wearing a neon sign that said, “Look at me, I’m a woman now,” which was a blatant challenge to Boeing management’s authority.

Conclusion:

Justice was served in this case.

Case #6: Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband, LLC, 313 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. Colo. 2004), p. 571.

Parties: The Plaintiff in this case was Albert A. Buonanno (a self-professed Christian) and the Defendant was AT&T Broadband, LLC (a Delaware corporation)

Facts: Employed by the Defendant during the period January 10, 1999 through February 1, 2001, the Plaintiff was presented with a new handbook (“A Summary of Our Business Philosophy”) that included required for him to sign a certificate of understanding confirming he read, understood and would comply with its provisions; the only alternative was termination. The Plaintiff objected to certain language contained in the handbook that required him to “value” individual differences, including those he believed might violate his religious beliefs. The Plaintiff was not contacted by management or human resources in order to clarify his concerns nor was he afforded the opportunity to make such clarifications. After discussing the matter with his clergy, the Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Defendant specifying which objectionable language was involved, but emphasized that he would comply with all other provisions of the handbook, just as he had always done. Citing the Defendant’s zero tolerance policy, the Plaintiff was terminated due to his refusal to sign the requisite certificate of understanding.

Applicable Law(s): The Plaintiff cited two discrete theories of religious discrimination and the Defendant’s failure to accommodate pursuant to the provisions of Title VII.

Holding: The court held that the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s Title VII rights by failing to consult with him concerning his specific objections to the diversity policy and make any necessary accommodations or otherwise clarify the issue.

Reasoning: This was an open-and-shut case of an unnecessarily officious manager attempting to illegally project authority.

Case Questions:

If you were Buonanno’s manager, how would you have handled this situation? Any informed manager would have contacted the Plaintiff to clarify his concerns and determine whether they rose to a violation of the diversity policy.

Think about the issue of an employee deciding not to accept a coworker because of religious reasons. If you were the manager, how would you balance the two (workplace requirements versus religion)? What if, as in Chapter 11, the employee’s religion teaches him or her to hate Blacks and Jews? Is it the same? Explain. Accommodation does not mean that employers are legally required to tolerate blatant extremism and bigotry in the workplace.

What considerations should an employer be concerned with when coming up with approaches to promote workplace cohesion and avoidance of discrimination claims? It is always vitally important to ensure that lines of communication remain open between management and workers in order to avoid costly and avoidable misunderstandings about workplace policies.

Conclusion:

It is likely that many if not most people who have been employed for any length of time have encountered policies that either made no sense or were based on erroneous information. This case underscored the importance of ensuring that employers provide workers with the opportunity to clarify their policies and use this feedback for improvements.

Case #7: Hostettler v. College of Wooster, No. 17-3406 (6th Cir. 2018), p. 758

Parties: The Plaintiff in this case was Heidi Hostettler and the Defendant was the College of Wooster (Ohio).

Facts: In late 2013, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant at a time when she was already pregnant. The Defendant’s unpaid maternity leave policy allowed new mothers 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) irrespective of any other qualifying condition. As a result, the Plaintiff used 12 weeks of unpaid leave following the birth of her child, but her return to work was hampered after the Plaintiff developed a

severe case of postpartum depression. After receiving a prescription for her depression and a certification that a reduced schedule was needed from her physician which indicated the Plaintiff required a reduced work schedule, the Defendant allowed the Plaintiff to work a modified, reduced schedule until June 30, 2013. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff continued to suffer from her postpartum depression but she did not receive any complaints about her work from her co-workers but she was terminated in mid-July 2013 despite providing yet another doctor’s certificate concerning when she would be able to return to work full time. In response, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Issue: Did the Defendant’s termination of the Plaintiff’s employment violate her rights?

Applicable Law(s): The ADA and comparable Ohio state law

Holding: After receiving summary judgment in the Plaintiff’s favor that the Defendant failed to demonstrate the precise reasons why a full-time employee was required to perform the Plaintiff’s work during the period in question, an appeals court granted summary judgment to the Defendant on all of the Plaintiff’s motions.