By Mitchel Wilson
In Bennett v. Dallas Independent School District, 3:11-cv-00393-D (2013), the court granted summary judgment to the Dallas Independent School District (“DISD”) and dismissed Bennett’s claims under the ADA and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”) when Bennett refused to take a psychological exam following a disability related reassignment, and then stopped showing up for work entirely without providing any notice. Bennett was an officer with the school district from February 2001 until August 2010. He was called to active duty of the US Army in Afghanistan from March 2005 to June 2006 and in Iraq from May 2007. In Iraq, he suffered a knee injury resulting from an explosion of a rocket propelled grenade that struck his vehicle. Because of his physical injuries, he could not perform the following necessary functions of the job for at least six months.
“walking and running for long periods of time; jumping from elevated surfaces; navigating obstacles such as ditches, streams, or fences; balancing on uneven or narrow surfaces; using force to gain entry through barriers; maintaining a full range of motion of the neck and head; or bending over, reaching, crouching, climbing stairs, and lifting and dragging one’s own body weight in the course of performing job-related duties”
At first, Bennett was assigned as a security officer light duty position, he retained his title as a police officer with same pay and benefits, but was unarmed and not wearing a police uniform because he wasn’t functioning as an officer due to his limitations. After a follow-up with his physician, Bennett was reassigned as a dispatcher because of his continued physical limitations in April 2010. Surprisingly, and somewhat suspiciously Bennett submitted a new physical report cleared him for duty one month later. However, the department continued to request that Bennett submit himself to a psychological evaluation. He refused to take the test and stopped reporting for work on June 23, 2010 and he was terminated for job abandonment and insubordination for failure to take the exam.
He claimed that the department discriminated against him because he suffered from PTSD, but there was no evidence that the school was aware of his condition at the time. Bennett claimed he was discriminated against because his supervisor strongly doubted he would be able to pass the psych evaluation to return to school; but because Bennett never actually took the test, he cannot substantiate his claim.
As evidence of resentment against him for seeking to return to a police officer position, Bennett relies on allegedly discouraging statements about his employment prospects if he did not accept the dispatcher position.
The evidence on which Bennett relies—even if viewed as threats that Bennett would not be able to pass a psychological evaluation or ever become a police officer again—would not permit a reasonable jury to find that DISD’s reason for assigning him to the positions of security officer and dispatcher—his inability to perform the essential physical functions of a police officer position—is pretextual. Nor would the evidence permit a reasonable jury to find that DISD’s reasons for terminating his employment—job abandonment and insubordination—are pretextual.
Even when the court considered, hypothetically, that Bennett had met his basic prima facie burden, it concluded that the district could show it acted for legitimate reasons. The district reassigned him because of his physical impairments and officers are routinely required to complete psychological evaluations.
