Clarifying Essential Job Functions and Accommodation Obligations in Post-Pandemic Employment: Ray v. Columbia Brazoria

Introduction

In Ray v. Columbia Brazoria Independent School District, No. 24-20227 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025), Annie Laura Ray, a 63-year-old Black teacher with multiple underlying health conditions, sued the school district and its officials under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII, Title VI, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). After the district resumed in-person instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic, Ray refused to return on medical grounds, requested remote teaching or isolation accommodations, exhausted her leave, and ultimately was not re-appointed. The district court granted summary judgment for CBISD. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, articulating key principles about essential job functions, the interactive accommodation process, and the evidentiary burdens in discrimination and retaliation claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit’s opinion, authored by Judge Edith Brown Clement, affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for CBISD. The court held that:

In-person attendance is an essential function of a teacher’s job, and Ray’s unsupported assertion that she could teach remotely did not create a genuine factual dispute.
Reassignment to positions with fewer students (DAEP, ISS, Homebound) was not required because those positions were already filled and the ADA does not compel displacement of other employees.
Ray failed to carry her burden in the interactive process by not specifically identifying her limitations or proposing the relocation of her classroom to more isolated facilities.
Her nonrenewal, based on exhaustion of leave and failure to report to work, had a legitimate nondiscriminatory justification; there was no evidence of pretext for race, sex, or age discrimination.
Her retaliation claim failed for lack of causal connection: her accommodation request preceded the nonrenewal by over seven months, and her EEOC charge and appeal occurred after the decision not to renew her contract.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Credeur v. Louisiana (860 F.3d 785, 5th Cir. 2017): Held that regular work-site attendance is an essential function, particularly in interactive roles like teaching.
Sarkisian v. Austin Preparatory School (646 F. Supp. 3d 174, D. Mass. 2022): Confirmed that in-person teaching is inherently essential and cannot be dispensed with under the ADA.
Fisher v. Basehor-Linwood USD (460 F. Supp. 3d 1167, D. Kan. 2020): Recognized “teaching and supervising students” as essential functions.
Moss v. Harris County Constable Precinct One (851 F.3d 413, 5th Cir. 2017): Established the employee’s burden to identify available alternative positions and prove she is qualified for them.
Taylor v. Principal Financial Group (93 F.3d 155, 5th Cir. 1996): Clarified that employees must specifically identify their limitations and suggest accommodations to trigger the employer’s interactive process duties.
Loulseged v. Akzo Nobel Inc. (178 F.3d 731, 5th Cir. 1999): Explained that breakdowns in the interactive process traceable to the employee do not violate the ADA.
Feist v. Louisiana Department of Justice (730 F.3d 450, 5th Cir. 2013): Laid out the three elements of a failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA.

Legal Reasoning

The Fifth Circuit applied settled ADA and discrimination law through de novo review of summary judgment. Key points of its reasoning include:

Essential Functions: In-person attendance and classroom management are essential functions of a teacher’s role. Temporary telework during a statewide closure did not permanently alter these functions.
Reasonable Accommodation: Ray’s requests (remote teaching, isolation, reassignment) failed because:
- She provided no evidence that remote teaching could fulfill essential job duties.
- Alternative positions were already filled, and ADA does not require displacement of incumbents.
- She never proposed or documented her need for relocation within campus, leaving the interactive process uncompleted.
Interactive Process Burden: Under 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. §1630.9, an employer must engage in a flexible dialogue once an employee makes a concrete accommodation request. But Taylor and Loulseged hold that the employee must first articulate her limitations and propose accommodations; absent that, any breakdown is not the employer’s fault.
Discrimination and Pretext: The nonrenewal was justified by exhaustion of leave and unexcused absence—legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. Ray offered no substantial evidence that CBISD applied its own policies improperly or that gender, race, or age animus motivated the decision.
Retaliation: Protected activity (accommodation request) and adverse action (nonrenewal) were separated by over seven months. Subsequent appeal and EEOC filing post-date the adverse action, precluding causation.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision reinforces that:

Employers may require in-person performance of essential job functions even after temporary pandemic accommodations.
Employees bear the initial burden of specifying their disabilities, limitations, and concrete accommodations to activate employer obligations.
Telework is not per se a reasonable accommodation where essential workplace attendance is required by the job description.
Exhaustion of leave and clear communication about return-to-work dates can justify nonrenewal or termination without giving rise to ADA liability.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Essential Functions: Core duties that an employee must perform on site—e.g., a teacher’s need to interact with students face-to-face.
Reasonable Accommodation: Practical adjustments enabling a disabled employee to perform essential functions—subject to undue hardship.
Interactive Process: A collaborative dialogue between employer and employee to identify suitable accommodations.
Prima Facie Case (McDonnell Douglas framework): Initial showing that a plaintiff is in a protected class, qualified, suffered an adverse action, and was treated less favorably than peers.
Pretext: Evidence showing that an employer’s stated nondiscriminatory reason is not the real motive for the adverse action.
Causal Connection in Retaliation: The temporal or evidentiary link tying protected conduct to adverse employment action.

Conclusion

Ray v. Columbia Brazoria solidifies the principle that, even in a post-pandemic world, the existence of temporary remote work does not nullify traditional essential-function analyses under the ADA. It underscores the employee’s obligation to clearly define her disability, limitations, and desired accommodations to trigger the employer’s interactive process duties. This decision will guide employers and employees alike in navigating accommodation requests, leave policies, and discrimination claims in the education sector and beyond.