Retaliation at the Heart of Tennessee Lawsuit
The welfare of a second grade student is at the heart of a retaliation lawsuit that was recently revived by a federal appeals court in Tennessee. In the initial complaint, the parents of a Shelby County, Tennessee school district student allege that their daughter’s school principal retaliated against them in response to their accommodation requests made in connection with the girl’s medical condition.
The student, who is identified in the lawsuit only as A.C., suffers from Type I diabetes. In her three years at the Bon Lin Elementary School, A.C.’s parents made numerous requests for accommodation of their daughter’s condition. They asked that the student’s blood sugar be tested in the classroom by the school nurse rather than having their daughter go to the nurse’s office where she would regularly encounter sick children. This request was not granted, but others were. Among them were adding a full time nurse to the school staff and training teachers how to respond to a diabetic emergency.
Despite most of their accommodations being granted by the school, A.C.’s parents continued to agitate for further changes. The principal and other staff members became increasingly bewildered regarding how to respond to the numerous requests. When A.C.’s teacher observed her eating candy and cookies at school, alarm bells sounded for administrators. They came to the conclusion that A.C.’s parents were not appropriately attending to their daughter's medical needs. This belief led to the principal contacting the Tennessee child services agency. The agency investigated the maltreatment claims, but ultimately declared them unfounded.
Nonetheless, the action prompted A.C.’s parents to initiate a lawsuit against the school district which asserted retaliation on the part of the principal in response to their accommodation requests. A summary judgment found in favor of the school district, but a three judge panel at the federal appeals court (view the opinion HERE) recently overturned that decision. The panel found that a jury could reasonably construe the report to the child services agency as a retaliatory act. Accordingly, this newly reopened case is likely to be tried in a court of law before a jury.