In a stunning turn of events, a psychology professor at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania, Stephen Oross, has emerged victorious in a legal battle challenging the university’s policy against remote work. The U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl, in a reversal of his earlier ruling, acknowledged that the school’s policy, which Oross argued was discriminatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, indeed had a disparate impact on the professor himself.
Kutztown Prof Wins Do-Over On Policy’s Disparate Impact : Judge’s Reconsideration
In a move that injected a burst of unpredictability into the case, Judge Schmehl granted Oross’ motion for reconsideration, admitting to an error in applying the wrong standard. The court emphasized the distinction between proving disparate impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Notably, the court stated that in the ADA context, a plaintiff need only demonstrate adverse impact on themselves, unlike Title VII, which requires proof of impact on an entire protected class.
Victory on Disparate-Impact Claim
The court, highlighting the perplexity in the case, reversed its prior judgment favoring Kutztown on Oross’ disparate-impact claim. Oross had previously secured summary judgment on various claims, including intentional discrimination related to the university’s full-time, full-duty policy. This policy was declared invalid by Judge Schmehl, who found it failed to show a justifiable reason for denying Oross remote teaching accommodations.
Kutztown Prof Wins Do-Over On Policy’s Disparate Impact : Causal Link Established
The court recognized that Oross had successfully identified the discriminatory policy and demonstrated its adverse impact on him. The professor, having undergone a heart transplant and taking immunosuppressant medication, showcased the policy’s impact on his vulnerability to COVID-19. Importantly, the court noted that defendants failed to justify the challenged policy, shifting the burden onto them.
Kutztown Prof Wins Do-Over On Policy’s Disparate Impact : Notable Exclusions
While celebrating this legal triumph, Oross faced setbacks on other counts of the lawsuit. The court declined to reconsider its rulings on claims related to the Rehabilitation Act and Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. Emotional damages claims under the Rehabilitation Act were also dismissed, and a request for a do-over on the First Amendment retaliation claim was rejected.
University’s Response
Kutztown University, along with its president Kenneth Hawkinson and Vice President Jesus Peña, are currently reviewing the decision with lawyers for the state and the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. Lorrie McKinley of McKinley & Ryan, representing Oross, expressed satisfaction with the judge’s ruling, emphasizing the importance of addressing policy-based discrimination.
