Occasionally, we come across charter school claim scenarios that happen to charter schools that we feel are extremely important to share.  It is not only to show the importance of having the right coverage but also to show how your charter school can prevent future claims like these.

The Facts: MNO Charter School employed Sally in the main office as an administrative assistant for over five years.  Dur g the last year, she informed MNO that she had developed degenerative disc disease and arthritis of the spine. She also submitted medical notes from her doctor noting that she could not sit for long periods.

Sally said that she had a two-hour commute to the office and could not sit in a car for that time. Acco dingly, she requested that she be allowed to telecommute as a reasonable accommodation for her disability.  MNO did not believe that Sally could perform her job duties from home, and she denied her request. MNO  hen fired Sally as they did not think she could perform the essential functions of her job, and they needed someone in the office who could.

Risk Factors: The interactive process requires an employer to engage in a dialogue with an employee to determine whether a reasonable accommodation would enable the employee to perform the job’s essential functions. MNO did not appear to engage in this type of dialogue with Sally to determine whether a reasonable accommodation would have enabled her to do her job or if a job restructuring or modified work schedule would have worked.   In addition, MNO did not document the interactive process and its considerations of various accommodations. Sall filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination violating the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Sall alleged that MNO did not engage in the “interactive process” in good faith, which is required under California law.

The Bottom Line: This matter went to trial, and the jury found in favor of Sally, finding that MNO did not meet the high standard of engaging in the interactive process. Whil the jury only awarded Ellen $45,000 in compensatory damages since she did not present much evidence of damages, MNO was also required to pay Ellen an additional $255,000 in attorney fees and costs.