Brigette I. Bodie-Jernigan v. School Board of Broward County, Florida

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, employment law lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a Americans With Disabilities Act job discrimination theory.



In August 2007, Bodie-Jernigan began working as a teacher

at the Dillard 6-12 School in Broward County.1 Her responsibilities

included maintaining discipline in the classroom and creating a pos-

itive and engaging learning environment for her students. Bodie-

Jernigan suffers from several medical conditions, including reduced

kidney function, prior cardiac surgery, and prediabetes.

In early 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the

School Board moved all classes online. Soon after, Bodie-Jernigan's

treating physician recommended that she work remotely until the

COVID-19 pandemic was resolved.



In September 2020, the Broward Teachers Union and the

School Board met to create a memorandum of understanding to

guide the School Board's response to the pandemic. The memo-

randum stated that the School Board would "strive to provide the

choice of remote work assignments to the highest possible number

of requesting employees.” But the memo also specified that "[e]li-

gibility for a work from home remote extended assignment [would

be based] on the function of the job and the needs of the

worksite[,]” and that an "employee must be able to perform the

essential functions of the employee's job through digital platforms

without commuting to the office [and/or] a centralized location.”

When the School Board began to resume in-person classes in Oc-

tober 2020, Bodie-Jernigan requested an accommodation to work

remotely until the pandemic "was resolved.” The School Board in-

itially granted her request and allowed her to work remotely from

October 2020 through January 2021.



In January 2021, an arbitrator issued a judgment in a dispute

between the Broward Teachers Union and the School Board stating

that the School Board "may require teachers to return to their class-

rooms to meet operational needs based on the number of students

who intended to return to school.” After the arbitrator's decision,

Bodie-Jernigan received a notification from the School Board that

her remote work allowance would expire later that month. The

School Board expected her to report for work in person when the

allowance expired. Bodie-Jernigan tried to meet with her school's

principal about extending her virtual accommodations, but the

principal refused to discuss the prospect of granting her an exten-

sion.



In February 2021, because of her health concerns, Bodie-Jer-

nigan decided to take an unpaid personal leave of absence rather

than return to work in person. She remained on unpaid leave until

August 2022, when the 2022–2023 school year began. During that

time, the School Board designated her as an inactive employee,

meaning she was not eligible for bonuses or other job benefits

In April 2022, Bodie-Jernigan sued the School Board. She

brought two claims. First, she alleged that the School Board dis-

criminated against her under the Act by refusing to grant her a re-

mote-work accommodation. Second, she claimed that the School

Board retaliated against her in violation of the Act by "forc[ing]”

her to take unpaid leave after it denied her requested accommoda-

tion.



The School Board moved for judgment on the pleadings, and

Bodie-Jernigan responded with an amended complaint. The

School Board then moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and

the district court granted the motion—dismissing Bodie-Jernigan's

amended complaint without prejudice. Bodie-Jernigan filed a sec-

ond amended complaint containing more detailed allegations. The

School Board again moved to dismiss, and the district court granted

the motion—this time dismissing Bodie-Jernigan's suit with preju-

dice. Bodie-Jernigan appeals the dismissal.

Affirmed