Supreme Court Ruling Delivers Victory for Students with Disabilities

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court paved a new route for students with disabilities to hold schools responsible—and now, recover damages—when a school fails to provide adequate educational accommodations. In Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, the Court held that students with disabilities are not required to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when the plaintiff is also seeking monetary relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for prior discrimination or mistreatment by the school.

Miguel Luna Perez attended public school in Sturgis, Michigan from ages 9-20.  Speaking with reporters, Perez said that during his time in the Sturgis Public Schools, he received “some sign language,” but he wanted more. There was one other deaf student at his school. However, lacking resources and support, the two deaf students could not communicate with each other, much less the rest of the school. According to Perez, “nobody interpreted for me at Sturgis.”

Settling Perez’s IDEA claim, Sturgis schools agreed to send Perez to the Michigan School for the Deaf, where annual tuition exceeds $40,000, and pay for his post-secondary education so that Perez and his parents could learn sign language. The IDEA settlement resolved Perez’s needs moving forward but did nothing to address his prior mistreatment. To obtain compensation for past harm, lost income and damages for emotional distress, Perez sued under the ADA.

Both the ADA and the IDEA protect children with disabilities. Under the IDEA, students with disabilities can petition their school to enact reasonable, additional educational accommodations. But the IDEA does not permit recovery of money damages or remedy prior discrimination or mistreatment of a student with disabilities. Aside from the ADA, no such law provides relief to the nearly 7.5 million students with disabilities in the U.S. This was until Perez decided to challenge his school.

“The question [before the Court] is whether a plaintiff must exhaust administrative processes under IDEA that cannot supply what he seeks,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “We answer in the negative.” Perez, who graduated from the Michigan School for the Deaf in 2020, said that he “learned so many new words and signs [and] learned construction.” Still, he said, “I wish I could have gone to college. I don’t have a job, but I want to have one. I want to make my own choices.”

‘Patient Safety Near Miss’ Justifies Termination Without Age or Disability Discrimination Liability

After a university dismissed a member of its medical residency program, she sued for wrongful termination and alleged she had been a victim of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act (NFEPA) as well as disability discrimination and retaliation under both under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the NFEPA. The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Nebraska employers) recently upheld the dismissal of her claims without a trial, however, affirming a U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska ruling.

Facts

Dr. Mary E. Canning, age 57, became an internal medicine resident at Creighton University in July 2015. During the first year of residency, she scored in the lowest 15 percent in the country on an in-service examination. Several doctors expressed concerns about her basic skills and level of competence, including memory issues.

After reviewing each resident's progress, a committee determined Canning hadn’t evolved in several areas, making it necessary for her to repeat the first year of residency. The panel let her know she was being placed on a leave of absence with pay until a fitness-for-duty evaluation could be conducted proving she was safe for patient care. She also was told her residency contract wouldn’t be renewed regardless of the evaluation’s results.

Canning retained counsel who sent the committee members a letter outlining their alleged acts of unlawful discrimination and objecting to her participation in the fitness-for-duty evaluation. Creighton's counsel in turn offered a firm resolve that she could repeat the first year of residency so long as she agreed to the evaluation and was cleared for duty.

A neuropsychologist evaluated Canning and found her to be in good mental health. The fitness-for-duty evaluation’s results also gave no indications of medical or psychiatric conditions that would preclude her from performing her duties. Therefore, she was permitted to repeat the residency intern year.

Canning continued to struggle academically, showing an inability to complete assessments or improve to the level of what would be expected from a first-year resident. After taking the in-service exam for the second time and scoring in the lowest seven percent in the country, she was placed on probation.

While on probation, Canning made an error that could have affected a patient’s safety. She discharged a patient admitted for a pulmonary embolism without providing a prescription for an anticoagulant. Her supervisors had previously reviewed the discharge plan with her and instructed her to prescribe the anticoagulant.

Canning admitted the error was “extremely serious.” The committee let her know she had been dismissed from the residency program, pointing to the “significant patient safety near miss” as its reason.

Resident’s claims and lawsuit

After Canning sued for age and disability discrimination and retaliation, Creighton offered nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her from the residency program by thoroughly documenting her:

·         Lack of medical knowledge;

·         Substandard clinical skills; and

·         Inability to perform a first-year internal medicine resident's duties in a timely fashion.

The documentation showed Canning’s performance in the residency program lacked progression and was at the minimum standards expected of a first-year resident. Creighton argued it “had a right—if not an obligation—to respond to an act or omission affecting patient safety with termination of the responsible individual.”

Creighton asked for summary judgment (dismissal without a trial), and the district court agreed, concluding there wasn’t enough evidence for a jury ever to rule in Canning’s favor. She appealed.

On appeal, Canning argued the district court erred when it concluded no rational fact-finder ever could conclude her termination was motivated by age, but the 8th Circuit affirmed the ruling. It pointed out Creighton produced a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination by explaining she had made an “egregious” error affecting patient safety in spite of “supervisor and attending efforts.”

Thus, Creighton satisfied its burden. To rebut the reason, Canning needed to show it was pretextual (or a cover-up for illegal discrimination). But, the 8th Circuit agreed with the district court that her proof had fallen short.

Bottom line

Sensitivity to an employee’s potential or actual disabilities is a good practice and required by the law in terms of considering accommodations. Often, older employees’ age may lead to the question of disabilities. But safety concerns, particularly in the medical arena, will often be paramount and provide justification for dealing with an employee’s errors that threaten the safety of a patient (or coworker, client, customer, or the public).

Bonnie M. Boryca is an attorney with Erickson│Sederstrom, P.C., in Omaha, Nebraska. You can reach her at 402-397-2200 or boryca@eslaw.com.