Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Rizzo v. Children's World Learning Centers, Inc., 213 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. May 26, 2000)(en banc)

Keywords: ADA (direct threat)

Introduction/Law: This is the third opinion issued by the Fifth Circuit in this case. In Rizzo I (at 84 F.3d 758 (5th Cir. 1996)), this Court held that the employer bears the burden of proving that the employee is a direct threat. This Court now makes the same ruling (en banc) that it did in Rizzo II (173 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 1999)) which is that (1) the district court did not commit plain error in placing the burden of establishing the direct threat defense on the employer; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Rizzo did not pose a direct threat. Three Circuit Judges write a lengthy dissent.

Facts: Rizzo was a teacher's aid at the Children's World Learning Centers, Inc. (CWLC). She suffers from a substantial hearing impairment. Part of her duties included driving children to and from school in a CWLC van. However, this duty was taken away from her after a parent complained that Rizzo's disability might place the children at risk while riding as passengers. CWLC then relieved Rizzo of her driving duties.