District’s compliance with federal Department of Transportation (DOT) regs is a
defense to ADA claim. When former school bus driver – now bus monitor – Melman sued a Tennessee school district for disability-based discrimination, the district asserted actions taken to comply with DOT’s drug testing regulations as a defense. In Melman v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, the driver
was unable to produce a sufficient urine sample to allow for a valid random drug test, and his “shy bladder” was regarded as a refusal to test. Te driver was demoted to the position of bus monitor, and he sued. Where the court was satisfied that the district had met federal standards in determining that the driver was no longer qualified for safety- sensitive duties, it dismissed the case. In addition, Melman’s requests for accommodation in connection with testing vio- lated DOT regulations, and, as such, were unreasonable as a matter of law.
EMPLOYEE TERMINATION Slight evidence of manager’s bad faith enough to keep mechanic’s case alive.
In Valentino v. Wickliffe School District (OH), a district’s termination of a school bus mechanic was preceded by his numerous absences, and medical approval of return to work following Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave due to his “stressful” work environment. A failed bus inspection led to a criminal investigation of possible involvement by
the mechanic or other employees. In addition, Valentino had raised safety concerns and was the subject of a private investigation into the basis for a day’s absence. “Slight evidence” that the investigations and the district’s reactions to his complaints dem- onstrated malice on the part of his supervisors led to the court’s denial of immunity for the supervisors on separate claims against them by the mechanic. Lack of solid documentation and an arbitrator’s opinion in the mechanic’s favor
might well have been indicators that the supervisors’ actions would probably fail the intense scrutiny of an appellate court.
Driver’s unauthorized drop-off was legitimate basis for termination. In Dinkins v. Suf-
folk Transportation Service, Inc. (NY), a bus company had previously disciplined a driver for at-fault accidents, repeated tardiness and poor manners. It was an unauthorized stop, however, that drove the company too far. A student had asked that she be dropped off at an intersection that was not a des-
ignated stop because she had “an emergency doctor’s appointment.” Policy mandated that, although a driver could use discretion when there was an emergency, Dinkins was to follow up with an immediate call to dispatch. A road supervisor called Dinkins when she observed the drop-off while driving around in her car, and the driver testified that the supervisor’s call meant he didn’t need to notify dispatch. Te company terminated him. At trial, the company was able to counter each of several examples the driver offered
to convince the court that he was the victim of gender-based discrimination. In each case, the incident, in which a female driver was involved, either wasn’t a violation at all or it had legitimately escaped the attention of company officials. Te company’s suc- cess in court stemmed, in large part, from its excellent records both of complaints and disciplinary consequences involving the drivers. Moreover, it had policies that set forth clear rules that drivers were expected to follow.
CRIMINAL CONDUCT Inappropriate relations with students. A criminal case against a bus aide highlights
a perennial concern with a new twist. A sexual relationship between a 21-year-old bus aide and a 14-year-old student with special needs began with texting. Robinette v. State of Indiana (an unpublished decision) was the aide’s appeal from imposition of the maxi- mum sentence – 20 years. His appeal failed because the court was unimpressed by his assertions that the girl had “instigated” the relationship and that it was “consensual.” It further found that the aide was charged with seeing the girl safely to school, and that he had abused his position.
We continually surpass them.
Quick-Secure Series 2010
The next evolution of the world's first retractor wheelchair tie-down and occupant restraint system:
We don’t stop to measure our successes.
Jerry Crunk 941.792.2299
Jcrunk@secureconnectllc.com
www.secureconnectllc.com www.stnonline.com 63
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76