United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO
AMEND THE ANSWER
VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Jon Wenc, works as a teacher for the Defendant, the New
London Board of Education (the “Board”). In this
lawsuit, Mr. Wenc claims that the Board discriminated against
him on the basis of his disability by refusing to provide him
with a reasonable accommodation in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et
seq., and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act,
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 et seq. Am. Compl. at
Counts One and Three, ECF No. 19. He also contends that the
Board retaliated against him in violation of these same
statutes. Am. Compl. at Counts Two and Four, ECF No. 19.
Board has moved for summary judgment on all of Mr.
Wenc’s claims. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No.
77. Mr. Wenc has cross-moved for summary judgment on his
reasonable accommodation claims only, under both the ADA and
CFEPA. Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 79. The Board
also has filed a motion to amend its Answer to add an
affirmative defense, because Mr. Wenc claimed worker’s
compensation benefits, during the same time the Board
allegedly discriminated and retaliated against him. Second
Mot. for Leave to File Second Am. Answer, ECF No. 99.
reasons that follow, the Court grants summary judgment in the
Board’s favor on all of Mr. Wenc’s claims.
Because the Court grants summary judgment for the Board, it
denies as moot the Board’s request to amend its Answer.
Statement of Facts
1990, both of Mr. Wenc’s legs were crushed in a car
accident. Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 21, ECF
No. 79-2; Def.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 15. As
a result of the accident, Mr. Wenc’s left leg was
amputated above the knee and his right leg underwent several
reconstructive surgeries and multiple skin grafts.
Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶ 19-21, ECF
No. 79-2; Def.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 18. Mr.
Wenc now uses a prosthesis on his left leg. Def.’s
Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶ 19-20. On occasion, he
also has suffered from blisters, cysts, ulcers, and lesions
on his amputation stump. See e.g., Pl.’s Local
Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶ 27, 87, ECF No. 79-2;
Def.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 68; Pl.’s
Exs. 14-24, Letters from Dr. Bentz; Def.’s Ex. K, Bentz
Dep.; Def.’s Ex. B, Wenc Dep. 51:13-52:5 (testifying
that he had lesions that failed to heal for several years).
Mr. Wenc also has limited mobility in his right leg and
suffers from ongoing pain there. Pl.’s Local Rule
56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶ 28-30, ECF No. 79-2; Pl.’s
Ex. 1, Wenc Dep. 36:23-38:5, ECF No. 79-4.
Wenc testified that his injuries impact his “entire
range of motion” and that, at times, he does not feel
well enough to walk at all. Def.’s Ex. B, Wenc Dep.
40:5-42:1 (discussing the impact of his injuries on his
mobility, including that on occasion, he was unable to walk
because of either pain or limited mobility in his right or
left legs, lesions or blisters, or lower back issues). He
also testified that he managed his condition by sitting as
much as possible and that he declined to use a wheelchair,
because he did not “want to become dependent upon it,
” and declined to use crutches because they limited his
mobility and he was embarrassed by them. Id. at
42:4-17, 149:16-150:7, 222:10-223:15. The Board contests that
the record supports Mr. Wenc’s description of the
nature and extent of some of his injuries, but it does not
dispute that Mr. Wenc is an amputee with limited mobility.
Def.’s Local Rule 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶¶ 23-33, ECF
October 2003, Mr. Wenc began working at the Board as a fifth
grade teacher at Nathan Hale Elementary School. Pl.’s
Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶ 11-12, ECF No. 79-2. He
has been certified by Connecticut’s Department of
Education to teach kindergarten through sixth grade since
April 28, 2011. Pl.’s Ex. 46, Certification Record from
Connecticut Department of Education, ECF No.79-49. During his
teaching career, the Board transferred Mr. Wenc to teach
first grade several times.
case, the core issue is whether Mr. Wenc’s disability
made him less physically suited to teaching first grade, as
opposed to fifth or sixth grade. While teaching first grade,
Mr. Wenc made several requests to be transferred to teach
sixth grade, because he found working in a first grade
classroom more physically demanding. See e.g.,
Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶ 34-44, 60,
62, ECF No. 79-2. He contends that he experienced pain while
teaching first grade and had trouble with his legs. See
e.g., id. ¶¶ 39-40, 62. He also
contends that teaching first grade created blisters and
lesions on his amputation stump, which required him to seek
medical leave on occasion. See e.g., id.
¶ 62; Def.’s Ex. I, E-mail dated June 11, 2008
(“The physical nature of the [first] grade position
requires me to move in certain ways that creates blisters
from my prosthetic limb. In addition to causing significant
discomfort, it has at times required requests for days off so
that these blisters can heal or for me to seek medical
attention for adjustments to my prosthetic limb.”);
Def.’s Ex. LL, Letter dated June 7, 2012 (teaching
first grade “has led to continued ulcers on my
amputated left limb, painful blisters, potential infection,
and ensuing complications in over-compensating on a severely
compromised right leg.”). He also believes that the
physical problems he experienced while teaching first grade
may have affected his performance negatively. See
e.g., Def.’s Ex. B, Wenc Dep. 109:2-20.
Board disagrees that teaching first grade is more physically
demanding than fifth or sixth grades and argues that there is
no evidence that Mr. Wenc suffered physically while teaching
first grade. Def.’s Local Rule 56(a)2 Stmt.
¶¶ 38-39, ECF No. 89-1. However, it admits that,
generally speaking, first grade teachers need to provide
different types of assistance to their students than fifth or
sixth grade teachers, including tying shoes, aiding the
children in using the bathroom, sitting with them on the
floor, and picking up backpacks. Id. ¶¶
41-44; Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶
41-44, ECF No. 79-2. The Board contends that any physical
injuries Mr. Wenc suffered were not caused by teaching first
grade, but rather by an ill-fitting prosthetic limb and Mr.
Wenc’s failure to follow his doctor’s
instructions by traveling while he was out on medical leave.
See e.g., Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Br. 7
(noting that Dr. Bentz testified that having an ill-fitting
prosthetic contributed to his injuries), 11-12, 33
(discussing trips to New York City taken while Mr. Wenc was
out on medical leave). The Board also argues that if Mr. Wenc
had used crutches or a wheelchair, he would have been more
physically able to teach first grade. See
Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Br. 30, 33.
Timeframe of Mr. Wenc’s Claims
and CFEPA require a prospective plaintiff to exhaust his or
her administrative remedies prior to filing a lawsuit in
federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a)
(incorporating Title VII’s enforcement provisions,
including the exhaustion requirement in 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-5(e), into the ADA); Belgrave v. Pena, 254
F.3d 384, 386 (2d Cir. 2001) (discussing Title VII’s
exhaustion requirement); Rieger v. Orlor, Inc., 427
F.Supp.2d 105, 114 (D. Conn. 2006) (applying Title
VII’s exhaustion requirement to ADA claims); Conn. Gen.
Stat. § 46a-82(f) (CFEPA’s exhaustion provision);
Gauba v. Travelers Rental Co., No. 3:12-cv-1713
(SRU), 2015 WL 1004309, at *4 (D. Conn. Mar. 5, 2015)
(discussing CFEPA’s exhaustion requirements).
exhaust administrative remedies under the ADA, a plaintiff
must file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) within 180 days of the
allegedly illegal action or actions, or within 300 days if
the complaint is filed with the EEOC’s local
equivalent. 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a); 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-5(e)(1) (“[I]n a case of an unlawful employment
practice with respect to which the person aggrieved has
initially instituted proceedings with a State or local agency
with authority to grant or seek relief from such
practice… such charge shall be filed by or on behalf
of the person aggrieved within three hundred days after the
alleged unlawful employment practice occurred”). To do
so under CFEPA, a plaintiff must file a complaint with the
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
(“CHRO”) within 180 days of the allegedly
discriminatory conduct. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-82(f)
(“Any complaint filed pursuant to this section must be
filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged
act of discrimination . . . .”).
exhaustion provisions operate like statutes of limitations,
which are calculated looking backwards from the date of the
filing of the administrative complaint. See Nat’l
R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 (2002)
(holding that Title VII’s exhaustion provision operates
like a statute of limitations, barring claims based on
discrete acts of discrimination or retaliation that occurred
outside of the relevant time period); Gauba, 2015 WL
1004309, at *4 (holding the same with respect to
CFEPA’s administrative exhaustion requirement and
explaining that the limitations period is calculated by
looking back from the date of the administrative complaint).
In other words, subject to certain exceptions that do not
apply here, the Court cannot consider a defendant’s
conduct prior to these limitation periods in assessing
liability under the ADA or CFEPA. See Morgan, 536
U.S. at 114 (holding that where a Title VII lawsuit is based
on discrete acts of discrimination, like denial of a
transfer, only acts that occurred 300 days before plaintiff
filed his administrative complaint are actionable in the
federal lawsuit); Gauba, 2015 WL 1004309, at *4
(“If the plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the
employer engaged in discrete acts of discriminatory conduct,
he may only seek adjudication on those allegedly
discriminatory acts that occurred within the relevant
look-back period-in this case, 180 days from the date he
filed his administrative complaint.”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Wenc filed a complaint with the EEOC and CHRO on December 13,
2012. Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 147, ECF No.
79-2. The parties also signed tolling agreements on September
26, 2012 and November 8, 2012, in which the Board waived all
statute of limitations defenses from September 21 to December
17, 2012. Pl.’s Opp. Br. 6, ECF No. 93; Pl.’s Ex.
61, Tolling Agreement, ECF No. 93-16; Pl.’s Ex. 62,
Tolling Agreement, ECF No. 93-17. As a result of the tolling
agreements, the parties have agreed that Mr. Wenc’s
lawsuit may only be premised on the Board’s actions
after November 26, 2011 with respect to his ADA claims and
after March 25, 2012 with respect to his CFEPA claims.
Pl.’s Opp. Br. 6, ECF No. 93; Def.’s Reply Br. 2,
ECF No. 105. Thus, any description of events that occurred
before either of those two timeframes is only provided for
context and may not form the basis of the Board’s
Factual Background to Mr. Wenc’s Claims
below chart summarizes Mr. Wenc employment history at the
Board and the relevant statute of limitations dates under the
ADA and CFEPA. Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 12,
ECF No. 79-2.
Nathan Hale Elementary School
Fifth Grade Until November 2004, then First Grade for
the Rest of the Year
Nathan Hale Elementary School
Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School
Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School
Jennings Elementary School
Jennings Elementary School
Winthrop Elementary School (Jennings renamed)
Winthrop Elementary School
Winthrop Elementary School
ADA: November 26, 2011
CFEPA: March 25, 2012
Winthrop Elementary School
Winthrop Elementary School
Winthrop Elementary School
Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School
Wenc claims that, while he was teaching first grade from 2004
to 2005 and 2007 to 2008, he had difficulty managing the
classroom physically and “had trouble with his
legs.” Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶
37, 40, ECF No. 79-2. The Board contends that it was not
aware of these difficulties. Def.’s Local Rule 56(a)2
Stmt. ¶¶ 37, 40, ECF No. 89-1.
Mr. Wenc transferred from teaching sixth to first grade in
Fall 2007, he told the Board that he was
“displeased” with the work and that “the
physical nature of the first grade” was not a good fit
for him. Def.’s Local Rule 56(a)(1) Stmt. ¶¶
37-38; Def.’s Ex. H, Letter from Mr. Wenc at 3. In a
letter dated June 11, 2008, Mr. Wenc expressed an interest in
teaching sixth grade, citing his physical handicap as the
reason for the request. Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt.
¶ 35, ECF No. 79-2; Def.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt.
¶¶ 39-40; Def.’s Ex. I, E-mail Dated June 11,
2008. The Board did not grant this request, and Mr. Wenc
remained a first grade teacher for the following school year.
Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 36, ECF No. 79-2;
Def.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 43.
this time, the Board also identified some problems with Mr.
Wenc’s performance as a teacher. Mr. Wenc’s
performance evaluation from the 2006 to 2007 school year,
while he was teaching sixth grade, identifies some deficient
areas of his performance. Def.’s Ex. F, Final
Evaluation Rep. dated May 17, 2007; see also
Def.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶ 31-33.
Despite these comments in his review, the Board granted Mr.
Wenc tenure at the end of the year. Def.’s Local Rule
56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 35. Both sides agree he then received
positive performance reviews for the 2007 to 2008 and 2008 to
2009 school years. Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt.
¶¶ 13-14, ECF No. 79-2.
the 2009 to 2010 school year, Mr. Wenc was placed on a
“performance plan, ” due to some performance
issues at the beginning of the year, that he successfully
completed. Def.’s Ex. B, Wenc Dep. 109:25-112:15. The
record reveals no performance issues going into the 2010 to
2011 school year. Def.’s Ex. E, Wilson Dep. 52:5-7
(testifying, as Mr. Wenc’s supervisor, that he had no
performance issues by the end of the 2009 to 2010 school
Facts Relevant to Mr. Wenc’s
Wenc taught first grade for the 2011 to 2012 and 2012 to 2013
school years. In Spring 2010 and Fall 2011, Mr. Wenc’s
supervisor, Jaye Wilson, testified that the Board had
observed some problems with Mr. Wenc’s performance.
Def.’s Ex. E, Wilson Dep. 81:5-82:4. As a result of
these issues, the Board placed Mr. Wenc on “Level
I” of the performance assistance plan in September
2011. Id; Def.’s Ex. L, E-mail dated Sept. 29,
2011. The Board placed teachers on such plans when they
underperformed. Def.’s Local Rule 56(a)1
Stmt¶¶ 4-10. In December 2011, the Board placed him on
“Level II” of the performance assistance plan due
to continued poor work performance. Def.’s Ex. A, Chery
Aff ¶ 14 (Mr. Wenc was placed on a “Level
II: Assistance Plan” on December 9, 2011); Def.’s
Ex. P, Assistance Plan, Notification of Change of Evaluation
Status dated Dec. 9, 2011. Level I is designed to promote
awareness of performance issues; Level II is designed to
ensure that the teacher corrects any issues and meets
performance standards. Def.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt.
¶¶ 10-12. Ms. Wilson testified that she
placed Mr. Wenc on these performance assistance plans,
because of deficiencies with “classroom management,
lesson planning, [and] . . . organizational issues.”
Def.’s Ex. E, Wilson Dep. 38:20-39:1,
December 13, 2011, Mr. Wenc formally asked the Board to
transfer him to sixth grade, because, in his view, teaching
first grade harmed his leg and placement in sixth grade was
more appropriate, given his physical disability. Pl.’s
Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶ 60-63, 70, ECF No. 79-2;
Def.’s Ex. T, Letter dated Dec. 13, 2011. On December 23,
2011, Mr. Wenc also expressed an interest in an open sixth
grade teaching position at Bennie Dover Jackson Middle
School. Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 65, ECF
No. 79-2. He followed up on December 27, 2011 by letter and
explicitly requested a transfer to this open position.
Id. ¶¶ 66-67.
Board’s superintendent and assistant superintendent
denied Mr. Wenc’s request for a transfer within ten
days of receiving it. Id. ¶ 71. Dr. Nicholas
Fischer, the Board’s Superintendent, decided that,
because Mr. Wenc was on a performance improvement plan at the
time of the request, it would not be appropriate to transfer
him to a different school, where he would need to work with a
different supervisor. See Id. ¶ 73; Pl.’s
Ex. 2, Fischer Dep. 66:11-15, 119:17-20, ECF No. 79-5
(“I disagreed with the transfer, because I felt that he
was trying to get away from his having been placed on a
professional improvement plan by going to another
principal.”); Def.’s Ex. Q, Fischer Aff. ¶ 9
(noting that because Mr. Wenc was underperforming, he
“needed to remain with the same primary
evaluator”). Dr. Fischer also felt that sixth grade
would not present less of a physical challenge to Mr. Wenc,
as the Board’s teaching model “requires all
teachers to actively move around the classroom throughout the
day.” Def.’s Ex. Q, Fischer Aff. ¶ 10.
However, the Board did not directly communicate its decision
to deny Mr. Wenc the requested transfer until roughly six
months later. Pl.’s Ex. 47, Wenc. Aff. ¶¶ 5,
7, ECF No. 79-50; Pl.’s Ex. 3, Fischer Dep. 246:14-16,
ECF No. 79-6.
same date that he requested a transfer to teach sixth grade,
December 13, 2011, Mr. Wenc also sought a leave of absence
from work because of a medical issue on the “distal
aspect of his amputation stump.” Pl.’s Local Rule
56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 83, ECF No. 79-2. During the first half
of the 2011 to 2012 school year, Mr. Wenc had developed a
lesion on his amputation stump. Id. ¶45. To
manage his condition, his physician, Dr. Bentz, recommended
that he not use his prosthetic, use crutches, and keep weight
off the stump as much as possible. See e.g.,
Def.’s Ex. V, Letter dated Dec. 13, 2011; Def.’s
Ex. X, Letter dated Dec. 30, 2011; see also
Def.’s Ex. K, Bentz Dep. 45:15-20, 46:24-47:4. Dr.
Bentz testified that, to ensure that Mr. Wenc rested and did
not wear his prosthetic during this time, she believed that
he should not work while the condition healed. Def.’s
Ex. K, Bentz Dep. 46:1-47:13. As a result, Mr. Wenc took a
medical leave of absence that lasted from December 13, 2011
to November 16, 2012. Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt.
¶¶ 83, 85-86, 93-94, 97, 143, ECF No. 79-2;
Def.’s Ex. A, Chery Aff. ¶¶ 18,
this time, Mr. Wenc provided a number of notes from his
physician, Dr. Bentz, which explained the condition and
reaffirmed the recommendation that Mr. Wenc take leave from
work. Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶ 83,
85-87, 93-94, ECF No. 79-2. Dr. Bentz testified that Mr.
Wenc’s injuries had many causes and could have derived
from an ill-fitting prosthetic and engaging in extreme
movements, like bending. Def.’s Ex. K, Bentz Dep.
39:2-24. In notes dated April 16, 2012 and August
29, 2012, Dr. Bentz specifically advised the Board that Mr.
Wenc “needed to be transferred to teaching a higher
grade level” because it would require less physical
movement. Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶
96, 103, ECF No. 79-2; Pl.’s Ex. 19, Letter from Dr.
Bentz dated Apr. 16, 2012, ECF No. 79-22; Pl.’s Ex. 20,
Letter from Dr. Bentz dated Aug. 29, 2012, ECF No. 79-23.
Wenc also sought and received worker’s compensation
benefits for the physical injuries that required his leave of
absence. Def.’s Ex. W, Notice of Claim for Compensation
(claiming an injury on the “lower left extremity”
on December 1, 2011); Def.’s Ex. AA, Payment Listing
(listing payments for temporary total disability);
Def.’s Ex. YY, Stipulation of Worker’s
Compensation Payments. His worker’s compensation claim
described the injuries as “recurring lesions/ulceration
on amputated limb aggravated by working conditions.”
Def.’s Ex. W, Notice of Claim for Compensation.
his medical leave, Mr. Wenc also took several trips to New
York City, largely for the purpose of auditioning for various
acting roles in television series and commercials.
Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Br. 11-12 (listing the trips
taken by Mr. Wenc from January to June 2012); Def.’s
Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶¶ 100-01, 103-08, 110
(same); Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶¶
100-01, 103-08, 110, ECF No. 93-1. Dr. Bentz testified that
she did not medically recommend this travel if it involved
wearing his prosthetic for a prolonged period of time,
because it could have slowed the healing process.
Def.’s Ex. K, Bentz Dep. 59:3-21, 60:2-4. Mr. Wenc
testified that during these trips, he was “off [his]
feet most of the day” and that in order to travel to
New York, he drove to Milford, took the train into Grand
Central Station, and took a taxi to his destination from
there. Def.’s Ex. B, Wenc Dep. 154:14-16. He noted that
he used crutches during some of these trips, and wore his
prosthetic leg on others for the entire course of a day.
Id. at 156:2-11. He also testified that, because he
was auditioning for roles for disabled individuals,
“accommodations were provided to minimize physical
activity.” Pl.’s Ex. 56, Wenc Aff. ¶ 15, ECF
January 20, 2012, after his December 2011 request for a
transfer had already been denied, the Board’s assistant
superintendent wrote a letter to Mr. Wenc requesting a
statement from his physician describing the nature of the
claimed disability and any limitations applicable to his job.
Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 84, ECF No. 79-2.
February 2012, Mr. Wenc reiterated his request to be
transferred to sixth grade in a letter describing his
disabilities, his history with the Board, and his need for an
accommodation. Def.’s Ex. FF, Letter dated Feb. 2012.
In the letter, Mr. Wenc also asked that he be removed from
the performance assistance plan, reasoning that his
performance issues were caused by his inability to work with
first graders effectively because of his disability.
7, 2012, Mr. Wenc made another request to be transferred to
sixth grade as an accommodation for his disability.
Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 98, ECF No. 79-2;
Def.’s Ex. LL, Letter dated June 7, 2012. He also
sought a meeting to discuss the same and again asked to be
removed from the performance plan. Id.
Wenc met with Dr. Fischer on July 5, 2012 and reiterated his
request for a transfer. Pl.’s Local Rule 56(a)1 Stmt.
¶ 99, ECF No. 79-2. Dr. Fischer told him that he could
only return to work in a first grade position, but agreed
that Mr. Wenc should undergo a “Functional Capacity
Assessment” completed by a physician. Id.
¶¶ 99-100. At this meeting, Dr. Fischer also
suggested that Mr. Wenc use a wheelchair to assist him in
moving around the classroom and that he could apply for
Social Security disability, if he could not work.
Id. ¶¶ 101, 114; Def.’s Local Rule
56(a)2 Stmt. ¶¶ 101, 114, ECF No. 89-1.
Board hired Dr. Mustapha Kemal, a physiatrist, to complete the
Functional Capacity Assessment of Mr. Wenc. Def. ‘s
Local 56(a)1 Stmt. ¶ 137. After seeing Mr. Wenc twice,
Dr. Kemal referred him to an occupational therapist, Jessica
Babineau, to conduct the exam and report her findings to him.
Id. ¶¶ 138-41. The examination was
completed on October 4, 2012 and based on the results and his
own examination of Mr. Wenc, Dr. Kemal sent a letter to the
Board with his recommendations on November 1, 2012.
Id. ¶¶ 140-42. In his November 1, 2012
letter, Dr. Kemal concluded that Mr. Wenc would require an
accommodation of two classroom aides to teach ...