Presentation on theme: "BAIRD V. ROSE, 192 F.3D 462 (4TH CIR. 1999) Baird v. Rose Mykell Beauchamp, Crystal Johnson, Cara O’Boyle, Jaclyn Robbin, Julia Zigarelli."— Presentation transcript:
BAIRD V. ROSE, 192 F.3D 462 (4TH CIR. 1999) Baird v. Rose Mykell Beauchamp, Crystal Johnson, Cara O’Boyle, Jaclyn Robbin, Julia Zigarelli
Citation and Court Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 1999) U.S. Court of Appeals- 4 th Circuit
Relevant Facts Nancy Baird brought this action on behalf of her daughter, Kristen, against Baird’s former choir teacher, Susan Rose and school principal, Inez Cohen and Fairfax County School Board under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Virginia law.
Baird auditioned for and participated in show choir (a song and dance class for which grades where given) when she was in the 7 th grade. After receiving only a minor role in the spring play (acting audition, then alto when she was a soprano), Baird attempted suicide, believing Rose arranged for her to fail.
Relevant Facts Baird was diagnosed with severe depression and placed on a treatment plan that included medication and counseling. A family doctor and her psychologist submitted letters to Principal Cohen stating that Baird was fit to perform in show choir it and would be detrimental to her health to be excluded. The day after Rose learned of Baird’s diagnosis, she announced to the entire class that Baird would not be permitted to participate in the next show choir performance. Baird’s mother contested, asking for a chance for her daughter to show her knowledge of the routine. Rose refused, “citing her depression as her reason not to participate in show choir, and that individuals that suffer from depression could not be counted on to meet their responsibilities. “
Relevant Facts Cohen informed Rose that she must either prohibit from participation all who had been absent with the written absence policy or let all participate. Rose that implied that because Baird violated the attendance policy she was “being forced” to exclude others who had “legitimate absences.” Due to the stress of the situation Baird began to suffer severe emotional distress: difficulty concentrating, sleep problems, decreased appetite, exhaustion, fear of humiliation, increased physical illnesses, and academic deterioration. The federal district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that she wasn’t discriminated against by the sole reason of her depression.
Issues Did the district court improperly dismiss Baird’s claim of discrimination? Was Baird excluded from show choir “by reason of” her depression? Can Rose and Cohen be held legally accountable as individuals? Did the district court improperly dismiss Baird’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Holding Reversed in part, and affirmed in part “Baird's allegations state a claim of illegal discrimination under the ADA and that the district court erred in granting a dismissal of this claim” (Reversed district court’s decision) No. The district court correctly dismissed Baird's ADA retaliation claim against Rose and Cohen in their individual capacities.” (Upheld district court decision) Yes, they were in error in dismissing the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Reasoning a.) Definition of discrimination: 504: “solely by” disability ADA: prohibits discrimination “by reason of” disability The two are not complimentary regarding the “causative link between discrimination and adverse action.” Legislative history and Supreme Court precedent ruled that the “ADA did not impose a ‘solely because of’ standard of causation.” Even though her absenteeism played a role, discrimination on the basis of her disability was a “motivating factor” in her exclusion from show choir. b.) ADA doesn’t recognize a retaliation claim against “individuals” who are not employers (Title II and Title VII).
Reasoning 2. Virginia Law: (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless (2) the conduct was outrageous and intolerable in that it offends generally accepted standards of decency and morality (3) the wrongdoer's conduct caused the emotional distress (4) the emotional distress was severe. No dispute on parts 1, 3 and 4 Part 2 “We cannot say, as a matter of law, that the allegations in Baird’s complaint do not allege facts so outrageous as to exceed the bounds of decent society.”
Significance Private individuals vs. public entities: who can be held responsible for discrimination by reason of disability The language regarding the causative link between discrimination and adverse action is significantly dissimilar: ADA: “by reason of” 504: “solely” Virginia law regarding intentional emotional infliction is ambiguous