Jennings v. Frostburg State University et al.

Abstract

Case: Jennings v. Frostburg State University et al., No. ELH-21-656 (D. Md. 06/27/23)

Ruling: The US District Court, District of Maryland, refused to dismiss a claim in a suit against Frostburg State University.

Significance: A plaintiff claiming disability discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act must show that he is disabled within the meaning of the statute, was otherwise qualified for the position, and suffered an adverse employment action solely because of the disability.

Summary: The plaintiff's spinal atrophy required him to use a customized power wheelchair. A few weeks after he started working as a Frostburg biology professor in August 2017, the plaintiff allegedly asked in vain for the accommodation of power door openers for his lab. A couple of months later, the plaintiff filed a petition with the provost because he learned that the department chair and the dean didn't want his contract renewed.

While the petition to the provost was pending, the department chair allegedly told two colleagues that the provost intended to renew the plaintiff's contract and that he had only one day to convince her otherwise. The department chair promptly met with the provost, and she sent a recommendation of nonrenewal to the Frostburg president two days later.

The plaintiff filed a suit when the president refused to renew his contract, claiming that the provost's reversal of her decision from renewal to nonrenewal after meeting with the department chair demonstrated disability discrimination because the Frostburg renewal process didn't contemplate a meeting between the department chair and the provost.

Frostburg filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that a department chair should remain engaged in the process because they would know the most about the faculty member whose contract was being considered. The district court judge refused to dismiss the claim, ruling that a jury would decide whether Frostburg had acted properly.