Kathleen Borkowski v. Valley Central School District
63 F.3d 131, 4 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1264, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 21682 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff with a disability bears the burden of proving they are 'otherwise qualified' by demonstrating they can perform essential job functions with an effective accommodation; however, they bear only a light burden of production to suggest a 'reasonable accommodation,' while the employer bears the ultimate burden of persuasion to show the proposed accommodation is 'unreasonable' or imposes 'undue hardship' via a cost-benefit analysis considering statutory factors.
Facts:
- In 1972, Kathleen Borkowski sustained major head trauma and neurological damage in a motor vehicle accident, resulting in ongoing difficulties with memory, concentration, dealing with multiple stimuli, balance, coordination, and mobility.
- In the fall of 1987, Ms. Borkowski applied for a library teacher position with the Valley Central School District and discussed her accident and its lingering consequences during interviews with school officials.
- Ms. Borkowski was appointed as a probationary library teacher at two elementary schools in the School District, with duties including teaching library skills to students.
- During her three-year probationary term, Ms. Borkowski received mixed performance evaluations; some supervisors noted difficulties with classroom management, including student control and her remaining seated during lessons.
- In the spring of 1990, Superintendent James Coonan decided not to grant Ms. Borkowski tenure, citing poor classroom management and her remaining seated as primary reasons.
- Ms. Borkowski, citing her disability, requested reconsideration of the tenure decision and offered to provide a letter from her neurologist detailing her disability.
- The School District responded that Ms. Borkowski’s disability 'had absolutely nothing to do with' the decision to deny her tenure.
- On June 1, 1990, Ms. Borkowski submitted her resignation after receiving no answer from the School District regarding reconsideration.
Procedural Posture:
- Kathleen Borkowski brought an action against the Valley Central School District.
- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered summary judgment in favor of the School District.
- Ms. Borkowski appealed the District Court's entry of summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school district have an affirmative obligation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to provide a teacher with disabilities, whose performance inadequacies stem from her disability, a teacher's aide as a reasonable accommodation, and if so, what are the respective burdens of proof for the employee and employer regarding 'otherwise qualified,' 'reasonable accommodation,' and 'undue hardship'?
Opinions:
Majority - calabresi
Yes, a school district may be required to provide a teacher with disabilities an aide as a reasonable accommodation if it enables her to perform the essential functions of her job, and the court established a specific burden-shifting framework for such claims. The plaintiff, Ms. Borkowski, bears the burden of proving she is 'otherwise qualified,' meaning she can perform the essential functions of the job with an effective accommodation. She also has a light burden of production to suggest a plausible accommodation whose costs do not clearly exceed its benefits. Once she meets this, the employer, the School District, bears the burden of persuasion to prove the proposed accommodation is unreasonable or creates an 'undue hardship.' This involves a cost-benefit analysis, considering factors like the employer's size, type of operation, and the nature and cost of the accommodation. The court found that Ms. Borkowski raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a teacher's aide would enable her to perform essential functions and whether such an aide would be a reasonable accommodation, and the School District failed to demonstrate undue hardship as a matter of law. Therefore, summary judgment for the School District was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Concurring - jon o. newman
Yes, I concur with the majority's decision and its careful elucidation of the plaintiff's burden of production for reasonable accommodation and the defendant's burden of persuasion on unreasonableness and undue hardship. The concurring opinion highlights that Congress's intent in disability legislation (Rehabilitation Act, ADA) is clear about helping disadvantaged persons, but the procedural framework for litigation remains unclear, leading to differing approaches across circuits. While acknowledging the value of a cost-benefit analysis as a theoretical framework, trial judges will likely rely on common sense to determine if a plaintiff's suggested accommodation is sufficiently reasonable to proceed to a jury, rather than engaging in complex economic calculations. Though I would personally prefer the D.C. Circuit's approach, which places a heavier burden of persuasion on the plaintiff for 'reasonableness' in typical cases, the Second Circuit's current precedents require the middle course adopted by the majority, which represents a sensible procedural path given the statutory ambiguities.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the allocation of burdens of proof in disability discrimination claims under Section 504, particularly for 'reasonable accommodation' and 'undue hardship.' By establishing a relatively light burden of production for plaintiffs to suggest a 'plausible' accommodation, the Second Circuit makes it easier for disability discrimination claims to survive summary judgment. This framework shifts the heavier burden onto employers to justify why an accommodation is truly 'unreasonable' or an 'undue hardship,' requiring them to present specific evidence and undertake a refined cost-benefit analysis. This approach aims to prevent employers from dismissing accommodation requests without thorough consideration, promoting the core purpose of disability protection laws.
