November 2019 - Parks & Recreation - 26

LAW REVIEW

Qualified Disabled
Individual

Interactive Accommodation
Process

Under the circumstances of this
case, the federal district court
found the pretrial record had also
raised " an issue of material fact "
as to whether NSSRD knew about
Schiller's alleged disabilities.

NSSRD had also argued Schiller
had failed to sufficiently allege a violation of the ADA because she had
" stopped engaging in the interactive
process to determine an appropriate
accommodation. " As cited by the
federal district court, once an employee has disclosed that he/she has a disability, " the ADA requires an employer to engage with the employee in an
interactive process to determine the
appropriate accommodation under
the circumstances. " In this instance,
NSSRD claimed the required interactive process had begun at the August
9, 2016, meeting Schiller had with
Barton, but broke down when Schiller " failed to tell Zajler and Cunningham about her disabilities and request
an accommodation when she met
with them at Camp Duncan. "
The federal district court, however,
found the pretrial record indicated,
" the interactive process started and
ended on August 9, 2016. " Moreover, at this meeting, the court found
evidence that Barton had effectively
granted Schiller's accommodation
request " to assign another full-time
staff member to the camp, allow
Schiller to call him and Vermeer
when needed, and have Haas and
Sabini act as Schiller's co-leaders,
and Barton agreed to do so. "
Given evidence in the pretrial record that " the parties agreed to an
accommodation " and NSSRD failed
to provide it, the federal district court
found Schiller had indeed " raised a
genuine issue of fact, " which, if proven at trial, would establish her ADA
failure-to-accommodate claim.

Under the circumstances of this
case, the federal district court
found the pretrial record had
also raised " an issue of material
fact " as to whether NSSRD
knew about Schiller's alleged
disabilities.
In this instance, Schiller claimed
NSSRD knew of her alleged disabilities because " she told Barton,
a week before the Camp Duncan
trip, that she struggled with stress,
anxiety, fibromyalgia, and chronic
fatigue and that standing on her
feet for extended periods of time
made her weak. " In response,
NSSRD argued Barton's alleged
knowledge was irrelevant because
Executive Director Culp was " the
decision maker behind the actions
that Plaintiff [Schiller] alleges to be
discriminatory. "
The federal district court, however, found undisputed facts in
the pretrial record that Barton
was Schiller's supervisor and NSSRD offered " no evidence that
suggests employees were required
to go to Culp, rather than their
supervisor, to seek an accommodation. " As a result, the federal
district court held Schiller had
sufficiently alleged " a triable fact
issue " that NSSRD knew about
her alleged disabilities.
24

Parks & Recreation

claimed that NSSRD's termination
of her employment violated the
ADA. As cited by the federal district court, to overcome NSSRD's
motion for summary judgment,
Schiller would have to produce evidence of the following if her ADA
claim was to proceed to trial:
(1) she is disabled within the
meaning of the ADA, (2) she is
qualified to perform the essential
functions of her job either with or
without reasonable accommodation, and (3) she has suffered from
an adverse employment decision
because of her disability.
NSSRD argued there was no
causal connection between Schiller's disability and her termination
from employment at NSSRD. The
federal district court disagreed.
Based on the following facts, the
federal district court found Schiller
had produced sufficient evidence to
create " a genuine issue as to whether defendant terminated plaintiff
because of her disabilities " :
(1) when Zajler visited Camp
Duncan, plaintiff told Zajler that
she was struggling with anxiety; (2)
Zajler reported on the Camp Duncan visit to Culp; (3) later the same
day, when plaintiff called Culp, she
told him she would have to leave the
camp 'due to her health concerns'
unless she got more support, and
he told her she was being 'selfish';
(4) Culp asked Barton, who knew
about plaintiff 's alleged disabilities,
whether he thought plaintiff should
be fired; and (5) though defendant's
policies permit the use of progressive discipline, Culp did not consider discipline other than termination
for plaintiff.

Disability-Based
Termination

Retaliation

In her complaint, Schiller had also

In her ADA claim, Schiller also

| N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 9 | W W W. PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N . O R G
November 2019 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of November 2019 - Parks & Recreation
