1. Baird v. Rose Group #1 January 26, 2009
Shanna Alvarez, Michelle Dorman, Kate Fulwiler,
Kate Silver-Heilman, Daniella Sheville, Alana Willhite

2. Title and Citation Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 1999)
Volume Number
Page Number
Name of
Reporter
Name of Case
Court and Year
of the Decision

3. Type of Court
U.S. Court of Appeals
4th Circuit

4. 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
Baird auditioned for and participated in show choir when she was in the 7th grade
Rose showed concern that frequent absences due to sinus infections would be a problem for Baird’s participation

5. Relevant Facts
After receiving only a minor role in the spring play, Baird attempted suicide, believing Rose arranged for her to fail
Baird was diagnosed with severe depression and placed on a treatment plan that included medication and counseling.  After an absence, Baird's mother gave permission for the counselor to inform Baird's teachers of the diagnoses.

6. Relevant facts
Rose learned that Baird had been diagnosed with severe depression. The next day, when Baird returned to school, Rose announced to the entire class that Baird would not be permitted to participate in the next show choir performance, explaining to Baird that this "would be best.”

7. Relevant facts
Baird filed a Motion for Judgment against Rose in state court, claiming a violation of the ADA and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The action was moved to federal court where the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that she wasn’t discriminated against by reason of her depression

8. Disputed Issue
Was the district court in error in dismissing Baird’s claim of discrimination?
Was Baird excluded from show choir and thus discriminated against “by reason of” her depression?
Can Rose and Cohen be held legally accountable in their individual capacities?
Was the district court in error in dismissing Baird’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress?

9. Holdings of the Court
Yes, they were in error in dismissing the claim of discrimination in its entirety.
“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)
“However, 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.
“the district court improperly dismissed Baird's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

10. Rationale/Reasoning Discrimination
Sole reason for discrimination versus motivating factor
McNely v. Ocala: ADA does not require a “solely” standard to qualify as discrimination
Title VII of Civil Rights Act: unlawful for disability to be a motivating factor for employment decisions
Public versus private
Title II of ADA: a cause of action for discrimination only applies to public entities, not private individuals

11. Rationale/Reasoning Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Virginia law: there is not enough evidence to rule out intentional infliction of emotional distress
Intentional or reckless
Outrageous and intolerable…offends decency and morality
Caused emotional distress
Distress was severe

12. Significance
Needs for more concrete definition of what legally constitutes “severe emotional distress”
Post-hoc application of a neutral rule
Private individuals v public entities