Filar v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago, No. 07-1275 (7th Cir. May 22, 2008)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI) has ruled that a 69-year-old teacher’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) challenge to her reassignment from full-time teacher to roving substitute teacher can proceed, but it has rejected her claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff, Valerie Filar, was born in 1930 and had taught Computers in the Polish bilingual program at Chicago’s Edwin G. Foreman High School (FHS) since 1992. In the spring of 1999, FHS principal Dr. John Garvey became aware that the Chicago Board of Education would fund one fewer position in the Polish bilingual program the following school year. Dr. Garvey had significant discretion to change teachers’ positions and level of seniority. Between the spring and early fall of 1999, he had two teachers in the Polish bilingual program, who were born in 1957 and 1960, appointed to more senior, tenure-track positions. Both of these teachers had been full-time, non-tenure-track teachers, like Ms. Filar. Dr. Garvey then moved Ms. Filar from a state-funded position to a board-funded position and immediately thereafter informed her that she would be reassigned, ostensibly because of her lower seniority and the lack of board funding. Her new position as a substitute teacher would require her to fill positions in Chicago public schools as they became vacant. Ms. Filar requested that, because of an arthritic hip that inhibited her ability to walk, she instead be assigned to one of four schools she found acceptable because they were near bus stops. When her request was denied she sued in district court, which rejected her ADEA claim, holding that she failed to establish a case of age discrimination because she did not present evidence that a “similarly situated” younger employee was treated more favorably. Since the younger teachers in the program were more senior, holding tenure-track positions, they were not “similarly situated.” The district court also rejected her ADA claim.
The Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling on the ADEA claim. While in some cases differences in seniority do prevent a “similarly situated” showing, the court reasoned, that is not necessarily the case where, as at FHS, differences in seniority are determined entirely at the employer’s discretion. Since the three teachers had been teaching at FHS for similar amounts of time, were similarly certified, had identical duties, and appeared to have received similar reviews, they were “similarly situated” for ADEA purposes. The appeals court went on to hold that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Dr. Garvey had discriminated against Ms. Filar based on age and remanded the case. However, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling on the ADA claim. While acknowledging that Ms. Filar was a “qualified individual with a disability” under the ADA, entitling her to a “reasonable accommodation” of her disability, the appeals court did not believe her request to work as a substitute teacher at one school, rather than filling vacancies at any of the 116 Chicago public high schools as her position required, was “reasonable.”
Filar v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago, No. 07-1275 (7th Cir. May 22, 2008)