Booher v. Rowland Hall (Filed October 4, 2023 in federal district court)

Ms. Booher began working for Rowland Hall St. Mark’s School (“Rowland Hall”) in 2008 as a full-time academic support counselor for the middle school. She was later assigned to work in the upper school in the same position. In May 2014, Ms. Booher received a concussion at work which caused her traumatic brain injury. She took a leave of absence. Ms. Booher returned to work in approximately January or February 2015. At the recommendation of her medical provider, Ms. Booher requested the ability to return to work on a temporary, part-time basis and then work up to her previous full-time position. This accommodation was granted by her supervisor, as well as a few other accommodations.

Although Ms. Booher expected to eventually return to her full-time position, she was never permitted to do so and remained a part-time employee from approximately 2015–2018. Additionally, from approximately 2016–2018, she was removed from her salaried position and reduced to an hourly wage. In 2018 she was reassigned to work in the middle school. Her office was located near the music room and gym, and the noise exacerbated her disability. She requested reasonable accommodation of a quieter office. This was denied. The quiet office space was later given to one of her coworkers. She renewed her request for accommodation at the end of the school year, in May 2019. The principal and HR director requested an updated doctor’s note and an evaluation, which Ms. Booher provided. Her work hours were again reduced in approximately August 2019 when the new school year started.

In October 2019, the principal met with Ms. Booher and her doctor to discuss her accommodation requests of a quieter office, a flexible break schedule, and one day per week of telework. These were also denied.

On around December 13, 2019, she was told that her employment was terminated, effective January 17, 2020. The principal and HR director said that the school had expected her to recover fully and since she was not “100% healed,” they could not accommodate her because their vision was for the position to be filled by someone who did not need to be accommodated.

The DLC brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging claims of failure to accommodate, wrongful termination, and retaliation.

Languages