Direct Student Supervision Is an Essential Function of Middle-School Teaching: Fifth Circuit Holds the ADA Does Not Require Hiring a Full-Time Aide or Reassigning Supervision Duties

Introduction

In Kakoolaki v. Galveston Independent School District, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment against a legally blind applicant for a sixth-grade teaching position who alleged disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court concluded that direct supervision of students—both inside the classroom and during transitional periods—is an essential function of a middle school teaching role. Because the applicant admitted she could not perform that function without a full-time aide or reassignment of supervision tasks to others, the court held she was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA, and that the requested accommodations were unreasonable as a matter of law.

Although this opinion is unpublished (5th Cir. R. 47.5), it offers a clear, practical application of the ADA’s “essential functions” and “qualified individual” analyses in the K–12 education context, and it reinforces longstanding Fifth Circuit principles: employers are not required to remove essential job functions, reassign them to other employees, or hire an additional employee to perform them.

Case Background

Plaintiff-appellant Suzonne Kakoolaki, who has cone dystrophy and is legally blind, interviewed virtually in July 2021 for a sixth-grade social studies position at Central Middle School in Galveston County, Texas. After the first interview, she received a contingent offer subject to background and reference checks. She then voluntarily disclosed her visual impairment via email, affirming it would not affect her ability to perform essential job functions and inviting questions.

The school invited her to two additional interviews. During the second and third interviews, school officials discussed classroom expectations and the job description, including classroom management and student safety responsibilities. Kakoolaki acknowledged she could not view materials shared on her screen during the third interview and later requested accommodations. Two are central on appeal: (1) provision of a full-time classroom aide and (2) reassignment of hallway supervision duties to other teachers. The school selected another candidate. Kakoolaki filed an EEOC charge, received a right-to-sue letter, and sued the Galveston Independent School District (GISD) for (i) disability discrimination and (ii) failure to accommodate under the ADA.

Key Issues on Appeal

• Whether direct supervision of middle school students (in classroom and during passing periods) is an essential function of the teaching position at issue.
• Whether the requested accommodations—hiring a full-time aide and reassigning supervision duties—are reasonable under the ADA.
• Whether, with or without reasonable accommodation, Kakoolaki could perform the essential functions of the job and thus qualify as a “qualified individual” under the ADA.

Summary of the Opinion

The Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed. The court held:

• Direct supervision of students is an essential function of the sixth-grade teaching position, supported by the employer’s job description and by the applicant’s own requested accommodations, which indicated substantial time is devoted to supervision.
• By her own testimony, Kakoolaki could not personally detect non-audible student conduct (e.g., possession of a weapon, cheating, inappropriate phone use) without assistance; thus, she could not independently perform the essential supervisory function.
• The two accommodations sought—(a) a full-time classroom aide and (b) reassignment of hallway supervision to other teachers—would reallocate or remove an essential job function and thus are unreasonable as a matter of law under Fifth Circuit precedent.
• Because Kakoolaki failed to establish she was “qualified” under the ADA, both her discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims necessarily fail.

The panel also noted that although there was a dispute below regarding an allegedly discriminatory question (“How are you going to hide your blindness?”), that dispute was not pressed on appeal. In any event, without proof that she was a qualified individual, the claims could not proceed.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) and § 12111(8): The ADA prohibits discrimination “against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.” A “qualified individual” is one who, “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions” of the job. The court anchored its analysis in this threshold “qualified” inquiry; absent qualification, no ADA claim can succeed.
• 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n) and app. § 1630.2(n): These provisions define and explain “essential functions” as the fundamental job duties of the employment position; removing them would fundamentally alter the position. The regulation also directs consideration of multiple factors, including the employer’s judgment and written job descriptions. The panel relied on these principles to assess whether direct student supervision is fundamental to the role.
• Thompson v. Microsoft Corp., 2 F.4th 460, 466–67, 470 (5th Cir. 2021): Cited for the summary judgment standard and for the plaintiff’s burden to prove she is a “qualified individual.” The Fifth Circuit reiterated that to prevail on ADA discrimination or failure-to-accommodate claims, the plaintiff must first show qualification.
• Salinas v. R.A. Rogers, Inc., 952 F.3d 680, 682 (5th Cir. 2020): Quoted for the principle that the appellate court may affirm summary judgment on any ground supported by the record and presented to the district court.
• Credeur v. Louisiana, 860 F.3d 785, 792 (5th Cir. 2017): Cited to emphasize that essential-function determinations are fact-intensive and that courts give weight to the employer’s judgment and job requirements in real-world practice.
• EEOC v. LHC Group, Inc., 773 F.3d 688, 694 (5th Cir. 2014): Supports the case-by-case, factual nature of determining which job functions are essential.
• Robertson v. Neuromedical Center, 161 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 1998) and Barber v. Nabors Drilling U.S.A., Inc., 130 F.3d 702, 709 (5th Cir. 1997): Longstanding Fifth Circuit authority that the ADA does not require employers to transfer essential functions away from the disabled employee.
• Burch v. City of Nacogdoches, 174 F.3d 615, 621 (5th Cir. 1999): Reiterates that the ADA does not obligate employers to relieve an employee of essential functions, modify those duties, reassign existing employees to perform them, or hire new employees to do so.

Legal Reasoning

1. Standard of Review: Applying de novo review to the summary judgment record and construing all facts and inferences in favor of the nonmovant, the court asked whether any genuine dispute of material fact existed. It emphasized it could affirm on any proper ground supported by the record.
2. Identifying Essential Functions: The court gave “consideration” to the employer’s judgment (42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)) and the written job description. GISD’s job posting defined classroom management and student protection as core responsibilities. The court also drew an inference from Kakoolaki’s own accommodation request for a full-time aide, reasoning that such a request implied teachers spend substantial time supervising students—supporting the conclusion that supervision is fundamental. The practical stakes—maintaining order, enforcing conduct codes, and ensuring student safety—further underscore supervision as essential in the middle school setting.
3. Plaintiff’s Admissions: Kakoolaki testified that in the classroom she could not determine whether a student possessed a weapon, was engaged in sexual activity, was using a cell phone, was cheating, or was otherwise misbehaving—absent auditory cues or help. These admissions established that she could not independently perform core supervisory functions that are visually mediated and essential to the role.
4. Reasonableness of Requested Accommodations: The requested accommodations—(a) a full-time classroom aide and (b) shifting hallway supervision to neighboring teachers—would reassign or offload a primary job responsibility. Under Robertson, Barber, and Burch, the ADA does not require an employer to remove essential functions or assign them to other employees, nor to hire someone else to perform them. The panel thus held the requests were unreasonable as a matter of law.
5. The “Qualified Individual” Threshold: Because a plaintiff must be able to perform essential functions with or without a reasonable accommodation, and because the only proffered accommodations here were legally unreasonable, Kakoolaki could not satisfy the “qualified” element. As a result, both the discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims necessarily failed.
6. Direct Evidence Not Outcome-Determinative: The district court had treated a disputed comment (“How are you going to hide your blindness?”) as direct evidence of discrimination. On appeal, that issue was not pressed. In any event, direct evidence does not salvage an ADA claim if the plaintiff is not “qualified.” The Fifth Circuit thus resolved the case at the threshold qualification stage.

Impact and Practical Implications

1) K–12 Education: Supervision and Safety Are Core Functions

This decision underscores that, in the K–12 context, direct student supervision—inside the classroom and during passing periods—is an essential function of a teaching position. Schools can rely on their job descriptions, operational realities, and safety imperatives to establish that supervision and classroom management are fundamental. Where the record shows the teacher cannot independently perform such functions, courts may find no genuine dispute and resolve the issue on summary judgment.

2) The Limits of “Reasonable Accommodation”

The opinion reiterates a bright line: accommodations that reallocate or remove essential functions, or that require hiring a second person to perform those duties, are not reasonable under the ADA in the Fifth Circuit. The requested full-time aide and reassignment of hallway duties both crossed that line. By contrast, accommodations that enable the employee to perform essential functions personally—such as assistive technology, modified materials, or reasonable changes in how tasks are accomplished without shifting responsibility—remain within the ADA’s ambit. The court’s reasoning draws a clear distinction between tools that empower the employee and requests to have someone else do the job’s core tasks.

3) Litigation Strategy: The “Qualified” Prong Is Dispositive

Practitioners should note the decisive role of the “qualified individual” element. Even where there is arguable evidence of discriminatory animus, a plaintiff who cannot show she can perform essential functions with a reasonable accommodation will not proceed to a merits determination on discrimination. Deposition admissions about task limitations can be outcome-determinative, as they were here.

4) Employer Practices: Document and Communicate Essential Functions

Employers—especially school districts—should:

• Maintain clear, accurate job descriptions that identify essential functions like classroom management and student safety.
• Train interviewers to discuss essential functions and to conduct the interactive process respectfully and lawfully.
• Evaluate accommodation requests by distinguishing between aids that enable the employee to perform essential tasks and proposals that would transfer those tasks to others.

Although the opinion is unpublished, it provides practical guidance for HR and legal teams in education and similarly safety-sensitive environments.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Essential Function: A core duty of the job; removing it would fundamentally change the position. In this case, supervising students to maintain order and safety is essential for a middle school teacher.
• Qualified Individual: A person who can perform essential functions with or without a reasonable accommodation. If the only way to do the job is to offload essential duties to others, the person is not “qualified” under the ADA.
• Reasonable Accommodation: Adjustments that enable the employee to perform essential functions (e.g., assistive technology, modified equipment, restructured nonessential tasks). The ADA does not require eliminating essential functions, reassigning them to coworkers, or hiring someone else to perform them.
• Summary Judgment: A procedural device allowing courts to resolve cases without trial when there is no genuine dispute over material facts and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
• Direct Evidence of Discrimination: Statements or actions reflecting discriminatory intent. Even with such evidence, ADA claims fail if the plaintiff is not a “qualified individual.”
• Unpublished Opinion: Not precedential in the Fifth Circuit, but often persuasive and indicative of the court’s current application of governing law.

Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit’s decision reinforces a firm ADA boundary: employers need not reassign or remove essential job functions or hire an additional employee to perform them. In the K–12 setting, direct student supervision—both in class and during transitions—is fundamental to teaching. Because the applicant conceded she could not independently perform that function and requested accommodations that would transfer it to others, she was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA. The court therefore affirmed summary judgment on both the discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims.

While unpublished, the opinion offers clear guidance: comprehensive job descriptions, real-world operational needs, and the employee’s own portrayal of limitations can resolve essential-function disputes at summary judgment. For future cases, plaintiffs should tailor accommodation requests to enable personal performance of essential duties, and employers should continue to delineate and document the essential features of safety- and supervision-focused roles.