UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Phyllis Stallings, Ed.D.,

Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 14-13189

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

Detroit Public Schools, 

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. #20]

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff (“Stallings”) was employed as a teacher with the Detroit Public Schools

(“DPS”) from December 2, 2002 until her retirement on September 10, 2013. In 2012,

Stallings requested and received an accommodation under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101): a school service attendant and a first floor

classroom or elevator access. These accommodations were in place throughout the

2013 academic year and were to be in place for the 2013-14 academic year as well. 

However, Stallings submitted retirement papers on September 10, 2013, stating “[I am]

unable to fulfill my duties as an effective classroom teacher at this time.” Nonetheless,

Plaintiff filed this action against DPS alleging a violation of both the ADA and the

Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act. (“PWDCRA”), MCL 37.1101.

For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS DPS’ Amended Motion for Summary

Judgment.

1

2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW Doc # 26 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 622
II. ANALYSIS

The threshold issue is whether Stallings is a “qualified individual” within the

meaning of the ADA. This is an essential element that she must prove, or her cause of

action is doomed.

These are the pertinent provisions of the ADA:

“(a) General Rule

No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified

individual on the basis of disability in regard to job

application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or

discharge of employees, employee compensation, job

training, and other terms, condition, and privileges of

employment.

(b) Construction

As used in subsection (a) of this section, the term,

“discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of

disability” includes – 

(5)(A) not making reasonable accommodations to the known

physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified

individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee,

unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the

accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the

operation of the business of such covered entity.”

Further, § 12111 of the ADA states in pertinent part:

(8) Qualified individual 

The term “qualified individual” means an individual who, with

or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the

essential functions of the employment position that such

individual holds or desires. For the purposes of this

subchapter, consideration shall be given to the employer’s

judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if

an employer has prepared a written description before

advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this

description shall be considered evidence of the essential

functions of the job.

2

2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW Doc # 26 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 623
Stallings mentions the PWDCRA only in passing, but under that statute as well,

she has the burden to prove that her disability does not prevent her from performing the

duties of the job in question; a person otherwise qualified for a job is entitled to

accommodation if needed. MCL 37.1102; 37.1103(l); 37.1210.

The Court is required to review the evidence presented in the light most

favorable to Stallings. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. 475 U.S. 574,

586 (1986). If after doing that the Court determines there is no genuine issue of fact,

the defense motion must be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v Liberty Lobby,

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). A fact is material for purposes of summary judgment if

proof of that fact would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of

the causes of action or a defense advanced by the parties. Kendall v Hoover Co., 751

F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir. 1974).

Not only did Stallings admit she could not perform her job, her treating doctor

submitted a disability certificate shortly before her retirement and opined “no classroom

- sit down job only.” He also said “Pt is totally disabled to function in a classroom at this

time.” Moreover, Stallings applied for social security disability benefits shortly after her

retirement, alleging an onset date of disability of June 17, 2013, and an inability to work

then - three months before she retired. Stallings was awarded benefits in January,

2015 from the onset date of her disability.

A “qualified individual” must be able to perform her job requirements, with or

without reasonable accommodations.” Townley v Blue Cross and Blue Shield of

Michigan, 242 F. Supp 2d 661 (E.D. Mich. 2003).

Importantly, too, the Sixth Circuit held, “disabled former employees” are not

3

2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW Doc # 26 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 624
qualified individuals with a disability under Title I of the ADA.” McKnight v. Gen. Motors

Corp., 550 F.3d 519, 528 (6th Cir. 2008).

See also Gnatt v Wilson Sporting Goods, 143 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir. 1998), where

the Court held:

“There is no dispute that Plaintiff was a disabled person. 

Nevertheless, because she was not released by her doctor

to return to work, she has not met the second requirement

that she be qualified to perform the essential functions of the

job. An employee who cannot meet the attendance

requirements of the job at issue cannot be considered a

‘qualified’ individual protected by the ADA.” 143 F.3d at

1047.

Stallings’ argument that Defendant negligently disregarded her claim and failed to

engage in an interactive process to determine whether she was able to perform the

essential functions of her job as a classroom teacher is unavailing. There had been an

interactive process which resulted in earlier accommodations for Stallings which were

still in place when she returned for the 2013-2014 academic year. Whether she was to

be in a pre-kindergarten class or a first grade classroom, Stalling was still a classroom

teacher. Her doctor said she could not perform this job; her retirement papers said she

could not perform this job; her social security application said she could not perform this

job beginning in June, 2013.

The Court concludes that Stallings “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish

the existence of an element essential to [her] case, and which [she] will bear the burden

of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Accordingly,

Defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

4

2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW Doc # 26 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 625
III. CONCLUSION

Defendant’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Judgment

will enter in favor of Defendant.

IT IS ORDERED.

 /s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: October 28, 2015

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and Phyllis Stallings by electronic

means or U.S. Mail on October 28, 2015.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

5

2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW Doc # 26 Filed 10/28/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 626