Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wenc v. New London Board of Education

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

August 16, 2016

JON WENC, Plaintiff,
v.
NEW LONDON BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

          RULING ON THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER

          VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff, 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.

         The 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.

         For the 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.

         I. Statement of Facts[1]

         In 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.

         Mr. 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 No. 89-1.

         In 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.

         In this 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.

         The 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.

         A. Timeframe of Mr. Wenc’s Claims

         The ADA 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).

         To 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 . . . .”).

         These 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).

         Mr. 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 liability.

         B. Factual Background to Mr. Wenc’s Claims

         The 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.

Academic Year

Grade Taught

School

2003-2004

Fifth Grade

Nathan Hale Elementary School

2004-2005

Fifth Grade Until November 2004, then First Grade for the Rest of the Year

Nathan Hale Elementary School

2005-2006

Sixth Grade

Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School

2006-2007

Sixth Grade

Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School

2007-2008

First Grade

Jennings Elementary School

2008-2009

First Grade

Jennings Elementary School

2009-2010

First Grade

Winthrop Elementary School (Jennings renamed)

2010-2011

First Grade

Winthrop Elementary School

2011-2012

First Grade

Winthrop Elementary School

ADA: November 26, 2011

CFEPA: March 25, 2012

2012-2013

First Grade

Winthrop Elementary School

2013-2014

Fifth Grade

Winthrop Elementary School

2014-2015

Fifth Grade

Winthrop Elementary School

2015-2016

Sixth Grade

Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School

         Mr. 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.

         When 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.

         During 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.

         During 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 year).

         C. Facts Relevant to Mr. Wenc’s Claims[2]

         Mr. 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.[3] 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, 82:1-4.[4]

         On 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.[5] 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.

         The 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.

         On the 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, 20-28.[6]

         During 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.[7] 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.

         Mr. 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.

         During 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 No. 93-11.

         On 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.

         In 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. Id.

         On June 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.

         Mr. 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.

         The Board hired Dr. Mustapha Kemal, a physiatrist[8], 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. ΒΆΒΆ 140-42. In his November 1, 2012 letter, Dr. Kemal concluded that Mr. Wenc would require an accommodation of two classroom aides to teach ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.