Plaintiff Shelly Cetin sued Kansas City Kansas Community College in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Cetin worked as a full-time ESL instructor at KCKCC since 2011. She has four immune system deficiencies that substantially limit various bodily functions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, her doctors advised her to take precautions to avoid contracting the virus. The college allowed her to work remotely from home during the fall 2020 and spring 2021 semesters. For fall 2021, KCKCC required all teachers to return to campus. Cetin requested to continue teaching remotely from home, but the college denied her request, stating it would cause undue hardship. Instead, they allowed her to teach via Zoom from her campus office. Cetin later submitted formal accommodation paperwork, but continued teaching from her office during fall 2021. In January 2022, while her accommodation request was pending final review, the college allowed her to work from home, where she has remained since.
Legal Analysis
Standing: The court rejected KCKCC’s argument that Cetin lacked standing, finding she presented evidence of concrete injuries including emotional distress, mental anguish, and depression from being unable to work from home.
Prima Facie Case
The ADA failure to accommodate claim required Cetin to prove four elements: (1) she was disabled; (2) she was otherwise qualified for the job; (3) she requested a plausibly or facially reasonable accommodation; and (4) KCKCC refused to accommodate her disability. The college did not dispute the first two elements. The court focused its analysis on two key elements: whether working from home was a reasonable accommodation and whether KCKCC refused to accommodate Cetin’s disability.
Reasonable Accommodation: The court found genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether teaching in-person was an essential function of Cetin’s job, noting evidence that she could effectively teach remotely and her job description did not require in-person teaching.
Refusal to Accommodate: The court found KCKCC did not refuse to accommodate Cetin during fall 2021, as it provided reasonable alternatives including teaching via Zoom from her office and other safety measures. The court noted Cetin failed to explain why these accommodations were ineffective or propose alternatives.
The court granted KCKCC’s motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the college refused to accommodate Cetin’s disability.
Schrag on Law 