Bailey v. Mount Diablo Unified School District

Background

Brett Bailey is deaf and primarily communicates in American Sign Language. Mount Diablo Unified School District hired him to teach American Sign Language at Concord High School on September 1, 2021. Bailey alleged that the district knew about his deafness, that he requested an American Sign Language interpreter during his first week, and that the district’s human resources department repeatedly ignored or mishandled the request. The district later provided a part-time interpreter whom Bailey shared with a student, but Bailey alleged that he had access to the interpreter for only part of one class and for only one of the five classes he taught. In March 2022, the district informed Bailey that it would not renew his employment contract for the following school year.

Bailey sued the district under Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act and under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. The district moved to dismiss all four claims and Bailey’s requests for compensatory and punitive damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally valid claim.

Rehabilitation Act claim

Bailey alleged three theories under the Rehabilitation Act: failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, failure to implement required policies, procedures, and staff training, and retaliation for advocating for his rights.

The court found that Bailey plausibly alleged that he had a disability and that the district knew about it. But the court concluded that he did not provide enough facts about the essential functions of his teaching position or explain how an interpreter would help him perform those functions. The court therefore found the failure-to-accommodate theory insufficiently pleaded. The court also found that Bailey’s allegations about missing policies, procedures, and training were bare legal conclusions and did not identify a neutral policy or practice, its effect on disabled people, or how it denied them meaningful access.

The court nevertheless denied the motion to dismiss the Rehabilitation Act claim because Bailey plausibly alleged retaliation. The court found that requesting a designated interpreter was protected activity, that non-reelection could be an adverse employment action, and that the timing between Bailey’s renewed accommodation requests and the non-reelection supported a possible causal connection.

California Fair Employment and Housing Act claims

Bailey brought claims for failure to accommodate, failure to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination, and failure to engage in the interactive process needed to identify an effective accommodation.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the failure-to-accommodate claim, with leave to amend. Although Bailey plausibly alleged that he had a disability, the court found that he did not allege the essential functions of his teaching position or facts showing that he could perform them with or without an accommodation. The court also found that he did not explain why the part-time interpreter failed to enable him to perform those essential functions.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the failure-to-prevent-discrimination claim, with leave to amend. Because the court found Bailey’s underlying failure-to-accommodate allegations insufficient, it also found the derivative failure-to-prevent claim insufficient.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the failure-to-engage claim. Bailey alleged that the district delayed responding to his accommodation request for four months, that discussions ended abruptly, and that district staff were unwilling to provide the requested accommodation. The court held that these allegations plausibly showed that the district failed to engage in a timely, good-faith, and continuing interactive process.

Damages

The court denied the motion to dismiss Bailey’s request for compensatory damages under the Rehabilitation Act. It reasoned that Bailey plausibly alleged retaliation, which is an intentional act, and that intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference is required for monetary damages under the Rehabilitation Act.

The court granted the motion to dismiss Bailey’s request for punitive damages because the defendant is a public school district and California law precludes that claim.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to dismiss as to Bailey’s Rehabilitation Act claim and FEHA failure-to-engage claim. It granted the motion as to the FEHA failure-to-accommodate and failure-to-prevent-discrimination claims, with leave to amend. It denied the motion as to compensatory damages and granted it as to punitive damages.