Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Published
Published
Published
No. 14-1608
ANDREW ADAMS,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendant Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cv-02876-MJG)
Argued:
Decided:
medical
leaves,
retaliation
for
taking
those
leaves,
Services
(CPS)
launched
child
abuse
Case
Management
committee
2
has
as
its
focus
conduct
detrimental
to
the
proper
functioning
of
the
school
system.
shown
any
investigation,
such
which
document
and
focused
on
claims
school
its
independent
district
policy
day,
however,
recommendation
of
he
Dr.
went
Kim
on
medical
Bondurant,
an
leave
internal
upon
the
medicine
by
Principal
Reginald
Farrare.
Adams
took
second
Adler
informed
the
Board
that,
when
Adams
returned
from
being
at
MacArthur
could
spur
panic
attacks
and
other
FMLA
paperwork
that
he
submitted
on
May
5.
The
Board
that
Adamss
conference,
attorney
Adams
could
received
attend.
letter
Two
from
weeks
the
after
Board
the
formally
that
escalated
situation
that
could
have
been
began
working
at
new
school,
J.
Albert
Adams
is
not
averse
to
the
possibility
of
being
assigned
to
and
less
favorable
staff-to-student
ratio.
In
has
reportedly
excelled
at
JAA.
He
has
received
claim,
except
for
Adamss
FMLA
interference
and
the
Boards
motion
for
summary
judgment
on
those
plaintiff.
Matsushita
Elec.
Indus.
Co.
v.
Zenith
Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); see Dennis v. Columbia Colleton
Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 645 (4th Cir. 2002). Summary
judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). For the following
reasons, we affirm the judgment.
II.
Adams contends that the Board both interfered with his FMLA
rights and retaliated against him for taking medical leave.
A.
The FMLA grants employees the prescriptive right to take up
to a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period
when, inter alia, an employee is burdened with a serious health
6
2612(a)(1)(D).
employee
is
also
When
entitled
returning
to
be
from
restored
FMLA
to
leave,
his
an
previous
absolute
position.
right
Id.
at
to
549.
restoration
to
Nonetheless,
it
a
is
prior
employment
unlawful
for
any
make
out
an
interference
claim
under
the
FMLA,
an
benefit;
and
(3)
that
interference
caused
harm.
See
leave.
In
fact,
he
took
three
separate
medical
leaves
totaling well over twelve weeks. The Supreme Court has observed
that the purpose of [an interference claim] is to permit a
court to inquire into matters such as whether the employee would
7
the
contrary,
Adams
received
more
than
the
statutorily
guaranteed amount.
Nevertheless, Adams argues that the Board interfered with
his leave in a variety of ways that stopped short of actually
denying him leave. In particular, he asserts that the Board took
adverse employment actions against him, which interfered with
his FMLA rights by discouraging the taking of leave. See 29
C.F.R.
825.220(b)
(Interfering
with
the
exercise
of
an
the
FMLA
and
the
applicable
regulation
explicitly
allow
might
be
out
of
work,
and
to
fashion
the
best
evaluation
out
of
concern
that
the
original
it
is
inauthentic.
See
29
U.S.C.
2613(c)
(allowing
statutory
right
to
seek
another
professional
medical
opinion.
Second,
Adams
argues
that
the
Boards
pre-disciplinary
Br.
may
at
32.
unlawfully
In
certain
interrupt
an
circumstances
employees
required
leave.
Here,
the
student.
continued
Adams
disciplinary
argues
more
broadly
investigation
ran
that
the
contrary
Boards
to
the
during
which
they
allegedly
indicated
the
entire
statements
from
MacArthur
staff
to
the
effect
that
his
of
the
informed
me
allegations . . . .);
that
J.A.
592
he
had
been
(statement
of
He
wouldnt
have
returned
if
it
wasnt.).
The
staff
information
apparently
conveyed
by
unspecified
other
persons.
For several reasons, we do not believe Adamss proffers
suffice to create an issue of triable fact as to the events
surrounding the February 24 meeting, or in a larger sense the
Boards continuation of its own investigation. See Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (finding summary judgment
proper,
after
against
adequate
party
who
time
fails
for
to
discovery
make
and
showing
upon
motion,
sufficient
to
10
record
exculpatory
that
resembles
resolution
of
what
the
Adams
January
claims
19
was
incident
fully
is
the
out
the
the
child
Employee
abuse
Case
allegation.
Management
log
J.A. 604-05.
shows
that
By
the
fact,
the
school
districts
interview
of
Adams
about
the
incident was not even scheduled until that same day, because DSS
had just completed and finalized its investigation of the child
abuse allegations and the school district investigation could
thereafter proceed unfettered. The draft report was not finished
until March 23, and the report was not finalized until April 8.
The Board then notified Adams of the pre-disciplinary conference
by letter. The conference was postponed for several days so that
Adamss counsel could attend.
It is surely true that the investigative processes of any
institution are open to abuse, but the record here points to a
standard
procedure
during
which
11
due
process
was
accorded
to
Adams every step along the way. Adams does not dispute that the
Board was entitled to conduct its own investigation into the
January 19 incident. Indeed, school districts must often engage
in investigations like this one or else face accusations and
lawsuits for not looking promptly into allegations of improper
teacher contact with students or violations of school district
policies.
The
investigatory
adequately
pre-disciplinary
and
linked
conference
disciplinary
to
his
process,
ample
FMLA
was
which
leaves,
part
of
the
Adams
has
not
seeking
the
and
an
impermissible
interference
with
Adamss
FMLA
Adams
and
the
asserts
written
that
Farrares
reprimand
alleged
constituted
verbal
adverse
12
particular,
was
the
final
step
in
the
Boards
legitimate
exercising
his
FMLA
rights.
See
29
U.S.C.
2615(a)(2)
(2)
her
employer
took
an
adverse
employment
action
against
her; and (3) there was a causal link between the two events.
Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., No. 13-1473, slip op. at
36 (4th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted). If the
defendant
advances
retaliatory
action,
lawful
the
explanation
plaintiff
must
for
the
alleged
demonstrate
that
the
of
the
retaliatory.
As
Boards
noted
actions
above,
here
the
were
simply
Boards
not
disciplinary
The
conference
Boards
and
review,
the
written
including
reprimand,
the
pre-disciplinary
observed
due
process
actions.
investigation
affect
Adamss
--
The
the
eventual
reprimand
employment
result
letter
position
or
of
the
Boards
--
did
not
adversely
his
pay
and
benefits.
employment.
Although
the
Board
required
the
medical
Nor
was
Adamss
transfer
from
MacArthur
to
JAA
in
The
Board
effectuated
the
transfer
promptly
--
Adamss
first day at JAA came merely a week after Dr. Wolff had cleared
him as fit to work. Adamss salary remained at the same level
for two years before being reduced by less than one percent, and
as
JAA
employee
he
was
no
longer
eligible
for
some
JAA
is
school
for
children
with
behavioral
MacArthur
and
also
has
more
favorable
staff-to-student
simply
transferring
is
Adams
no
to
retaliatory
animus
JAA
timely
in
at
work
manner,
here.
By
on
the
fewer
students
and
more
staff
per
student,
the
Board
on
his
disability
and
also
failed
to
accommodate
his
condition.
A.
The
persons
also
ADA
forbids
with
bars
seeking
employers
disabilities.
employers
these
from
statutory
42
from
U.S.C.
discriminating
12112(a)-(b).
retaliating
against
protections.
Id.
against
The
Act
employees
for
12203(a)-(b).
with
strong,
disabilities,
consistent,
id.
12101(b)(1),
enforceable
through
standards,
id.
ADA
is
someone
who,
with
or
without
reasonable
16
Adamss
included
Principal
continued
written
view,
Boards
Farrares
investigation
reprimand,
the
and
of
the
alleged
verbal
the
attacks,
student
mandated
ADA
hallway
medical
violations
the
Boards
incident,
examinations.
the
In
addition, Adams argues that the Board retaliated against him for
requesting a disability accommodation. The Boards retaliatory
measures,
he
asserts,
included
the
written
reprimand,
the
from
those
White,
548
that
U.S.
are
at
relatively
17
68.
As
the
insubstantial
Supreme
Court
or
has
provision
based
on
who
seeks
they
to
are,
prevent
i.e.,
their
injury
to
status.
The
only
those)
employer
actions
that
would
have
been
on
an
individuals
employment
as
opposed
to
harms
make
those
decisions
ones
that
adversely
affected
at
69,
they
are
much
less
18
likely
to
involve
adverse
promote
whose
impact
on
the
terms
and
conditions
of
such
matters
as
the
upbraiding
by
Farrare,
the
Boards
the
statutorily
permitted
medical
examinations
to
some
Even
assuming
the
unlikely
presence
of
an
unlawful
discriminatory intent for any of the above actions, they did not
cross the threshold that courts have traditionally required for
a personnel matter to be actionable. See, e.g., Cepada v. Bd. of
Educ., 974 F. Supp. 2d 772, 788 & n.51 (D. Md. 2013) (yelling by
an assistant principal at a teacher insufficient); Jeffers v.
Thompson, 264 F. Supp. 2d 314, 330 (D. Md. 2003) (an oral or
written
reprimand,
without
some
actual
injury,
does
not
investigation
facts
[that]
justifying
such
is
reasonably
an
rooted
investigation
in
not
sufficient), affd sub nom. Harris v. Earp, 203 F.3d 820 (4th
Cir. 2000), and Settle v. Balt. Cnty. Police Dept, 203 F.3d 822
(4th Cir. 2000).
19
B.
The transfer of Adams from MacArthur to JAA belongs in a
rather different category from that of the actions discussed
above. Adams claims here that the Board failed to provide a
reasonable accommodation for his disability. In particular, he
contends that the Board made no effort to reassign him to a
less stressful school where he would not suffer a reduction in
pay, and that the Board did not transfer him until four months
after he had initially requested an accommodation. Appellants
Br. at 46.
The ADA forbids an employer from discriminating against an
individual
with
accommodation,
can
disability
perform
the
who,
with
essential
reasonable
functions
of
the
Cir.
2001).
An
employer
that
fails
to
make
reasonable
accommodation
operations.
accommodation
42
may
imposed
U.S.C.
include
an
undue
hardship
12112(b)(5)(A).
job
restructuring,
upon
its
reasonable
part-time
or
the
Boards
efforts.
accommodations
were
We
think,
plainly
however,
that
reasonable.
the
Many
Boards
of
the
Adamss
transfer
to
JAA
was
consistent
with
the
Dr.
to
Adler,
another
emphasized
location,
that
away
Adams
from
the
must
be
site
of
agreed
supportive,
that
Adams
lower-stress
would
school
best
be
environment.
assigned
J.A.
to
194.
a
Dr.
the
Board
acted
on
Adamss
request
in
timely
June 2, and after his extended leave ended on July 28, he began
work there on August 4. The Board addressed this task during his
leave and executed the reassignment within a week of his return.
Under the circumstances, that seems a quite reasonable interval.
Third, in light of Adamss disability, the Board sensibly
sought
less
stressful
environment
for
him.
J.A.
202.
the
particular
characteristics
of
JAA,
after
consultation
favorable
staff.
The
conjunction
history
of
staff-to-student
Board
with
appears
the
to
fact
behavioral
ratio,
have
that
weighed
many
problems.
and
those
students
An
sizable
array
at
of
support
features
JAA
have
in
a
legitimate
elsewhere.
Indeed,
as
noted,
he
has
thrived
there:
he
has
have
threatened
transfer.
Although
such
him
on
two
behaviors
are
occasions
always
since
his
troubling,
they
that
environment
JAA
than
is
an
MacArthur.
equally
The
or
record
more
does
stressful
not
work
specifically
indicate what else the Board could have done or where else he
would
prefer
to
work.
Indeed,
Adams
has
never
requested
systemwide
collective-bargaining
agreement.
The
agreement
basis
students
of
than
schools
populations,
MacArthur.
The
and
JAA
resulting
has
$1,031
far
fewer
decrease
bonuses
awarded
at
other
schools.
The
fact
FMLA
and
the
ADA
impose
important
obligations
on
however,
are
extra
statutory
obstacles
to
the
child
abuse.
Schools
have
an
obligation
to
safeguard
the
with
their
employees
and
medical
professionals,
V.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is
AFFIRMED.
25