Sometimes you ought to stop and think: "how would this look in the local paper?"

In a St. Louis story with which I have a personal, but nonprofessional connection, Amanda C. Tinnin of the St. Louis Suburban Journals writes: “Disabled teacher’s aide sues SSD over right to have service animal”

Introductory note: “Special School District” provides services to students with disabilities and special educational needs. It is represented in this matter by one of St. Louis’ largest law firms.

Of all the places in St. Louis, Susan Thompson thought the Special School District would be the one to accept her. She was wrong.

Thompson was a teacher’s assistant in the district and her students bonded well with her because she had a noticeable disability like many of them. But when a service dog was given to Thompson, the district gave her notice saying she had been put on leave.

Thompson has filed suit against the district charging discrimination and retaliation. The district denies any claims and in a prepared statement said it made all necessary accommodations and that Thompson never proved she needed the service dog to do her job. The matter will come to trial in January 2005.

“The last seven years have really and truly been hell,” Thompson said. . . .”My dog allows me to stay independent.” . . .

After an accident seven years ago left her with bone damage, nerve damage and a twisted right leg, Thompson lost much more than her ability to walk. . . . Determined to work, she went back to school to find a new career where legs wouldn’t be necessary. She found it working as an interpreter for the deaf at the Special School District, but now she fears she may have lost this new career, too.

Following her second year in the district, she received a service dog to help her with such simple everyday tasks as walking. . . . [S]he was told “the presence of dog in the classroom with students with behavioral and emotional disorders could be disruptive to the learning environment and could present a safety issue.” . . .

The Special School District provided only a prepared statement about the current situation: “. . . The district has made accommodations and offered accommodations that address all of her concerns.” “Despite the efforts of the district, the teacher’s assistant continued to insist upon one specific accommodation, the use of a service dog. Recently, the district proposed a job assignment for this employee in which, in addition to all other accommodations she had been afforded, she would be able to have her dog with her during the workday. She turned down this assignment.”

Neither Thompson, nor her attorney, was impressed by the district’s assignment. “The district assigned her to a student with a history of running at teachers and grabbing their legs,” Thompson’s attorney, Bob Herman said. . . .
Her service dog allows Thompson to spend less time in her wheelchair and more time on her feet, albeit with a brace and cane. . . .

Herman said he discussed Thompson’s situation with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The commission was outraged, Herman said. . . .

“She’s a tough lady,” Herman said. “The irony is that the Special School District is refusing a disabled person something to make her life easier.” . .

On May 17, the district’s board voted to accept Thompson’s resignation because she had not accepted the job offer.

“For the people that are supposed to promote the success of children with disabilities, what is it that makes me different?” she wondered aloud. “Why am I not as precious? I’ve done everything they tell the children to do. I’ve gone back to school. I follow my doctor’s orders. I wear my leg braces. I’ve done everything to ensure my success. My goal was to have a job and work for the rest of my life. What kind of message are they sending?” Read more

My wife works in the office of Bob Herman, Thompson’s attorney, and is well acquainted with both Sue and her dog, Droopy. Apparently the latter is so well behaved no conceivable interaction with a child would be disruptive for either child or adult.

Bob will fight the good fight as long as it takes.

Sometimes the cost of an employment decision includes a major PR problem. I’d say this one qualifies. And the benefit of the decision to the District is a mystery.

And sometimes it makes more sense to provide an accomodation that may not be strictly necessary legally than to spend $100,000 litigating over it.

Of course, I haven’t yet read the District’s brief. Maybe they’ve got a real winner (?)

Sphere: Related Content