Often, employees who believe they were fired because of their disability will show that they were replaced by an individual without a disability as evidence of discrimination. In one recent case, however, a district court has allowed a case in which a deaf teaching assistant — who was replaced by another deaf individual — to continue. As a result, she may still have a discrimination claim.
Leola Golembeski worked as an “Auditorially Impaired” teachers’ aide for the Moorestown Township School District. She was one of two deaf aides in a “deaf classroom environment.” During one summer, the district decided that such classrooms should each have one deaf aide and one hearing aide. Because Golembeski was one of two deaf aids in her classroom, she was informed that her position was eliminated. The new position would be for an individual without a hearing impairment.
Still, the district advertised two openings for AI aides for the upcoming school year. When she questioned her former supervisor about why she could not stay on as an AI aide when there were two openings, he said that she was “not a good fit.” The district ultimately hired another individual with a hearing impairment.
Golembeski filed suit, alleging that the district discriminated against her by failing to renew her contract while advertising her position as open, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The school district argued that because her replacement was also deaf, she had no discrimination claim. Golembeski, however, countered that the new hire, “although hearing impaired, is able to communicate as a hearing person.” Unlike Golembeski who communicates only though sign language, the new hire is only latently deaf and wears a cochlear implant, according to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Because a mitigated disability is still a disability for ADA purposes, the new hire would likely be considered a member of the same protected class. However, Golembeski argued that the school district discriminated against her based on her own specific impairment.
Golembeski “draws arguably critical distinctions between their disabilities,” the court said. A detailed, fact-based inquiry — which would be inappropriate at this stage of litigation — is necessary, it explained.
The court said it had to allow Golembeski v. Moorestown Township Public Schools, No. 11–02784, 2013 WL 1007672 (D.N.J. March 13, 2013) to continue because “there is a genuine dispute as to whether Plaintiff’s position was actually eliminated or whether Plaintiff was simply no longer a ‘good fit’ for the position she formerly held.”
Golembeski produced enough evidence to establish an inference of discrimination, the court said. Furthermore, the school district has not offered any legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the decision, the court concluded, allowing her case to continue. Go here for more on this story. See the Guide to Preventing Discrimination in the Workplace and the ADA Compliance Guide for more information.