Legal Case and EEOC

A formal statement of jurisdiction has been omitted by the Rules of the First Year Moot Court Competition.

Plaintiff-Respondent Edna Krabappel ("Respondent") was employed as an elementary school teacher by Defendant-Petitioner Springfield School District ("Petitioner") from approximately June 1994 until February 1998 when Petitioner's Principal, Seymour Skinner ("Skinner") terminated her services. Since she was a child, Respondent has suffered from bronchial asthma, which as an adult she has always controlled through the use of prescription medications. At the time she was hired she told Skinner that her controlled asthma would not interfere with her teaching.

Due to improper medication, she suffered an asthma attack in early February 1998 in front of her students. Prior to then she had never suffered an asthma attack while employed by Petitioner. While she was absent from work, she was replaced with another teacher. Skinner told Respondent that her services had been terminated because her asthma prevented her from being an effective teacher and frightened and upset many of her students.

On February 28, 1998, Respondent filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging that she had been discriminating against on the basis of a disability. After receiving a right-to-sue letter from EEOC on March 17, 1998, she filed a civil action in Federal District Cou

. . .
whether a person suffers an impairment" was to be decided without regard to mitigating measures and that "the mere use of a mitigating measure does not automatically prove the presence of a disability." Id. at 1453-1454. Other courts have used this type of analysis, see, for example, Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893 (10th Cir. 1997). In that case, twin female pilots, who suffered from nearsightedness which was correctable by wearing eyeglasses or inserting contact lenses, sued United for discrimination on account of their disability under ADA. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with EEOC (and plaintiff in that action) that a significant condition or disorder uncorrected which "makes worse or diminishes in a material respect any of the enumerated body systems of the individual, . . . should be considered an 'impairment,' regardless of whether the individual compensates for this worsening or diminishment by corrective measures." Id. at 898-899. However, that Court did not agree that the correction of the nearsightedness could be ignored (as the section (j) IG would require) in determining whether the individual's major life activities had been substantially limited. From the standpoint of common sense, it is
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Court Appeals, District Court, Anthony Kennedy, Defendant Underlining, Skinner Skinner, Court Congress, II Respondent, Interpretive Guideline, ND Tex, Judge Kennedy, court appeals, major life, life activities, section ig, district court, mitigating measures, substantially limited, major life activities, 29 cfr, cir 1996, circuit court, circuit court appeals, major life activity, substantially limited major, petitioner's motion dismiss,
Approximate Word count = 4254
Approximate Pages = 17 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Legal Case and EEOC