ST. LOUIS – A federal court has sided mostly with a plaintiff suing St. Louis Public Schools over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Former teacher June Lenk, who is legally blind, claims she was unlawfully discharged from her job as an itinerant vision teacher after requesting assistive software on her work computer to complete her duties, including a "Speech Package" and magnification software that would enable her to listen to or read documents and see images.
Lenk alleged she continued to have difficulties with her computer and the software. She notified both a district-appointed assistant and the IT department regarding the matter on numerous occasions. However, the district was "unable to provide a solution," the ruling states.
On April 23, U.S. Magistrate Judge David D. Noce granted SLPS's motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the plaintiff's second claim under the ADA for failure to accommodate. But, he also held that a failure to renew Lenk's contract was sufficient for her to allege a tangible change in working conditions that produced a material employment disadvantage.
According to the ruling, Lenk was a contractor for SHC Services. However, Lenk argues that she was not terminated by SHC but by the district and continued to be employed by SHC.
After receiving a new laptop from SHC in January 2016, Lenk still alleged that problems accessing a database remained. SLPS brought in a third-party IT service to assist.
In June 2016, the ruling states Lenk was notified that SLPS would not renew her contract for the 2016-2017 school year. Lenk contends that the district failed to provide her with adequate accommodations and unlawfully discharged her from her employment.
Regarding the allegations that SLPS failed to accommodate, Noce wrote that "The issue before the court is not whether SLPS was immediately successful in its efforts to remediate plaintiff's inability to digitally access the necessary database to fully do her job, as plaintiff seems to argue. Rather, the issue is whether SLPS engaged in a good faith effort to accommodate plaintiff. Drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor from plaintiff's allegations of fact, the conclusion is inescapable that SLPS engaged in a good faith effort to accommodate plaintiff."