PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 1 of 9 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JOHN KERFOOT § 

§ 

§ 

 Plaintiff, § 

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. _________ 

v. § 

§ 

WEATHERFORD INDEPENDENT § 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, § 

§ 

 Defendant. § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGNAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:

Plaintiff John Kerfoot (“Plaintiff” or “Kerfoot Laird”) hereby presents this, his Original 

Complaint against Defendant, Weatherford Independent School District (“WISD” or “Defendant”) 

and for causes of action respectfully shows the Court as follows: 

I.

Introduction

1. Plaintiff would show the Court that Defendant wrongfully discriminated against

him on the basis of his disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 

'12101, et seq, (“the ADA”) and under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, Tex. Lab. 

Code Section 21.001 et. seq. (the “TCHRA”).

II.

Parties

2. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, Plaintiff, John Kerfoot was and is a

4:22-cv-00920

Case 4:22-cv-00920-O Document 1 Filed 10/13/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 2 of 9 

resident of Texas, residing at 126 Coyote Run, Weatherford Texas, 76086. Plaintiff may be 

contacted through his attorney of record, Nicholas A. O’Kelly, Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC, 3141 

Hood Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75219. 

3. Defendant, Weatherford Independent School District is a public school district

with offices located at 823 South Bowie Dr. Weatherford, TX 76086 and may be served through 

the Attorney General’s Office for the State of Texas. 

 III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, jurisdiction is appropriate in the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Texas, as this action involves a question of the application of 

federal law, namely the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. '12101, et seq. 

5. Plaintiff filed the instant action within 90 days of his receipt of the EEOC’s 

issuance of a Notice of Right to Sue dated July 15, 2022. 

6. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims for disability 

discrimination under the TCHRA. 

7. Venue for all causes of action stated herein lies in the Northern District of Texas, 

Fort Worth Division, because the acts alleged in this complaint took place, in whole or in part, 

within the boundaries of this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1391. 

8. Plaintiff is a qualified individual and was at all times relevant hereto, an employee 

within the meaning under the ADA. 

9. During all relevant times herein, WISD was a covered entity within the meaning 

under the ADA. 

10. During all relevant times herein, WISD was a covered entity within the meaning of

Case 4:22-cv-00920-O Document 1 Filed 10/13/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID 2
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 3 of 9 

TCHRA. 

IV. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiff was employed by WISD as a teacher of 7th and 8th grade Math and Science 

and also served as a football coach from July 2013 until his notice of termination on May 17, 2021. 

12. Plaintiff is also a veteran from Operation Desert Shield/Storm from November 1990 

through June 1991. As a result of his military service, Plaintiff has combat-related Post Traumatic 

Stress Disorder (PTSD). This is a permanent condition that affects one or more essential life 

functions. Consequently, Plaintiff is a covered employee under the Americans with Disabilities 

Act. 

13. Plaintiff fully disclosed his disability to the Head Coach and Superintendent at the 

time of his hire. Plaintiff also told Defendant that he needed a reasonable accommodation 

whenever he had a PTSD episode. 

14. Specifically, Plaintiff told Defendant that he required a brief cool-down period after 

a PTSD episode. Plaintiff’s condition was well known by the faculty and the student population. 

Mr. Kerfoot has taught at the Shirley Hall Middle School since 2013 and for several years, 

Defendant accommodated Plaintiff’s condition without any hardship. 

15. For the majority of this time, Plaintiff did not receive any criticisms or negative 

comments regarding his job performance. Plaintiff was an extremely popular teacher to both his 

co-workers and his students, who started a petition to reinstate him after learning that this teaching 

contract would not be renewed. 

16. Plaintiff made no secret of his disability and approached the school about a 

reasonable accommodation. An informal accommodation was reached wherein Plaintiff, upon 

Case 4:22-cv-00920-O Document 1 Filed 10/13/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID 3
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 4 of 9

experiencing symptoms of PTSD, would take time to briefly “cool off” after which he could then 

resume his teaching duties. At times this “cooling off” period would last less than a day. On 

other occasions he would have to stay home for 1-2 days and then return. During this time, his 

fellow teachers gladly covered for him. This accommodation allowed Plaintiff to continue to 

perform the essential functions of his job without posing any hardship to the Middle School.

17. This unofficial accommodation was well known and accepted by the school and the 

teaching staff, and remained in effect for years, without incident, until recently. 

18. In the months prior to receiving notice of the non-renewal of his contract, Plaintiff 

received several meritless write-ups. These write-ups began after Plaintiff missed one day of 

work because of his PTSD. Defendant’s head coach, William Mathis, wrote up Plaintiff for 

missing what he claimed to be an important date in the school’s 2021 sports schedule. However, 

Plaintiff had received permission from his immediate supervisor a week before the date to be late 

or miss practice due to the stress of a previous PTSD episode in which he took a “cool down” and 

in which, he provided a note from his therapist stating such. 

19. The principal, Ms. Stephanie Wynne, then got involved and sided with Mr. Mathis 

against Plaintiff. Plaintiff had previously filed a grievance against Ms. Wynne for not respecting 

his disability accommodation. 

20. Plaintiff filed a grievance against the principal for no longer accommodating 

Plaintiff’s disability. 

21. On May 19, 2021, Defendant issued Plaintiff a “Notice of Non-Renewal of his 

teacher’s contract. The May 7 ‘Notice of Non-Renewal’ lists 11 different reasons for the ISD’s 

actions, yet none of these listed reasons contain any specific facts, details, or even dates of the 

particular events in support of these listed reasons.

Case 4:22-cv-00920-O Document 1 Filed 10/13/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID 4
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 5 of 9 

22. The sequence of events suggest that Plaintiff was punished because of his disability,

and in retaliation for his filing a grievance against his Superintendent for failing to accommodate. 

He is unaware of any complaints that were made against him, and never received any warnings or 

counseling sessions. 

23. Further evidence of retaliation appears in the unwarranted discipline and actions

that the school took against Plaintiff to aggravate his disability. On one occasion, Defendant 

attempted to put Plaintiff in charge of the cafeteria, which he had said would aggravate his disorder 

due to the excessive noise in one setting. It was only after he complained that he was allowed to 

move into a different, less stressful position. 

24. On another occasion, Defendant punished Plaintiff for taking a personal call while

at school. At the time, he had full coverage from his coworkers. Yet, this was raised as a 

terminable offense. Plaintiff believes and therefore asserts that the prohibition against personal 

calls during school days is inconsistently enforced and rarely leads to immediate termination.

CAUSES OF ACTION

AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 21

OF THE TEXAS LABOR CODE AND THE ADA

25. The foregoing paragraphs of this Petition are incorporated in this Count by

reference as if set forth at length herein. 

26. Plaintiff has a covered disability under the ADA. Weatherford ISD is a covered

employer under the same Act. The ISD has waived any sovereign immunity under Title VII and 

may be sued in federal court if this matter is not resolved. Plaintiff was unfairly terminated de to 

his disability and in relation for his filing a grievance with the defendant, 

27. Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on or about September

Case 4:22-cv-00920-O Document 1 Filed 10/13/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID 5
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 6 of 9

14, 2021. After filing his charge, Plaintiff waited 180 days and requested a Notice of Right to 

Sue from the EEOC. The EEOC issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue on or about July 15, 

2022. Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit within 90 days of receipt thereof.

28. Plaintiff was and is a qualified individual for the job he was terminated from. 

With reasonable accommodation to attend medical appointments, Plaintiff can perform the 

essential functions of his job without any undue hardship to the Defendant.

29. Defendant took an adverse employment action against Plaintiff on account of his 

disability. Specifically, Defendant failed to accommodate Plaintiff’s actual disability by

permitting his continued employment with reasonable accommodations to attend medical 

appointments. In fact, Defendant violated the ADA and Texas Human Rights Act, Texas Labor 

Code §21.001 et seq, by discharging and discriminating against Plaintiff because of his disability 

after he requested a reasonable accommodation. 

30. Defendant violated the ADA and the TCHRA by discharging Plaintiff and/or 

discriminating against Plaintiff in connection with compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges 

of employment because of Plaintiff’s record of actual or perceived disability.

31. Such discrimination by Defendant against Plaintiff was intentional. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendant for lost wages, pecuniary losses,

emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, and other non-pecuniary losses. Further, this

discrimination was done by Defendant with malice or with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s 

state-protected rights. Plaintiff therefore is also entitled to recover punitive damages in a sum 

which is in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court. Plaintiff is also entitled to 

recover all costs of court, attorneys’ fees, and expert fees as allowed by Texas Labor Code Ann. 

§21.259.

Case 4:22-cv-00920-O Document 1 Filed 10/13/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID 6
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 7 of 9 

32. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs under the 

ADA and state law.

V.

AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 21 

OF THE TEXAS LABOR CODE AND THE ADA

33. The foregoing paragraph the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein 

as though fully set forth. 

34. Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment contract in retaliation for his 

protected activity of filing agreements alleging that he was mistreated based upon his 

disability.

35. Defendant’s refusal to renew Plaintiff’s teaching contract was in retaliation for

Plaintiff’s grievances which constitute protected activity under the ADA and Chapter 21 of the 

Texas Labor Code in the termination of Plaintiff and violated the ADA and the TCHRA by 

retaliating and discharging Plaintiff and/or discriminating against Plaintiff in connection with 

compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of Plaintiff’s record of 

actual or perceived disability.

36. Such discrimination by Defendant against Plaintiff was intentional. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendant for lost wages, pecuniary losses, 

emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, and other non-pecuniary losses. Further, this 

discrimination was done by Defendant with malice or with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s 

state-protected rights. Plaintiff therefore is also entitled to recover punitive damages in a sum 

Case 4:22-cv-00920-O Document 1 Filed 10/13/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID 7
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 8 of 9 

which is in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court. Plaintiff is also entitled to 

recover all costs of court, attorneys’ fees, and expert fees as allowed by Texas Labor Code Ann. 

§21.259. 

37. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs under the 

ADA and state law.

JURY DEMAND

38. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited to 

appear and answer herein, and that on final trial, Plaintiff has and recover the following relief 

against Defendant:

(1) Judgment for actual damages in the amount of past and future lost earnings and 

benefits, damages to past and future earnings capacity, and past and future medical 

expenses; 

(2) Judgment for past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, 

inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses; 

(3) Exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; 

(4) An award of liquidated and/or statutory damages in an amount equal to all lost 

wages, salary, employment benefits and privileges, and other compensation lost as 

a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct in the amount proven at trial; 

(5) An order by the Court reinstating Plaintiff as an employee of the Defendant in a 

similar position with similar pay and benefits to that from which she was 

wrongfully terminated, or, in the alternative, future pay in an amount to be 

determined by the Court; 

Case 4:22-cv-00920-O Document 1 Filed 10/13/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID 8
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 9 of 9 

(6) Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate;

(7) Attorney’s fees;

(8) Expert’s fees;

(9) All costs of court; and

(10) Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

Dated: October 13, 2022 

Respectfully Submitted,

KILGORE & KILGORE, PLLC

By: /s/ Nicholas A. O’Kelly 

NICHOLAS A. O’KELLY

State Bar No. 15241235 

nao@kilgorelaw.com

KILGORE LAW CENTER

3141 Hood St. Ste 500 

Dallas, Texas 75219 

(214) 379-0810 - Telephone

(214) 379-0848 - Fax

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

JOHN KERFOOT

Case 4:22-cv-00920-O Document 1 Filed 10/13/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID 9