Baird v. Rose

1
Baird v. Rose
Group 1 January 26, 2009

• Shanna Alvarez, Michelle Dorman, Kate Fulwiler,
• Kate Silver-Heilman, Daniella Sheville, Alana
  Willhite

2
Title and Citation

• Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 1999)

Volume Number
Page Number
Name of Reporter
Court and Year of the Decision
Name of Case
3
Type of Court

• U.S. Court of Appeals
• 4th Circuit

4
Relevant Facts

• Nancy Baird brought this action on behalf of her
  daughter, Kristen, against Bairds former choir
  teacher, Susan Rose and school principal, Inez
  Cohen
• Baird auditioned for and participated in show
  choir when she was in the 7th grade
• Rose showed concern that frequent absences due to
  sinus infections would be a problem for Bairds
  participation

5
Relevant Facts

• After receiving only a minor role in the spring
  play, Baird attempted suicide, believing Rose
  arranged for her to fail
• Baird was diagnosed with severe depression and
  placed on a treatment plan that included
  medication and counseling.  After an absence,
  Baird's mother gave permission for the counselor
  to inform Baird's teachers of the diagnoses.

6
Relevant facts

• Rose learned that Baird had been diagnosed with
  severe depression. The next day, when Baird
  returned to school, Rose announced to the entire
  class that Baird would not be permitted to
  participate in the next show choir performance,
  explaining to Baird that this "would be best.

7
Relevant facts

• Baird filed a Motion for Judgment against Rose in
  state court, claiming a violation of the ADA and
  intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• The action was moved to federal court where the
  district court granted the defendants motion to
  dismiss on the basis that she wasnt
  discriminated against by reason of her depression

8
Disputed Issue

• Was the district court in error in dismissing
  Bairds claim of discrimination?
• Was Baird excluded from show choir and thus
  discriminated against by reason of her
  depression?
• Can Rose and Cohen be held legally accountable in
  their individual capacities?
• Was the district court in error in dismissing
  Bairds claim of intentional infliction of
  emotional distress?

9
Holdings of the Court

• Yes, they were in error in dismissing the claim
  of discrimination in its entirety.
• Baird's allegations state a claim of illegal
  discrimination under the ADA and that the
  district court erred in granting a dismissal of
  this claim (reversed district courts decision)
• However, the district court correctly dismissed
  Baird's ADA retaliation claim against Rose and
  Cohen in their individual capacities. (upheld
  district court decision)
• Yes, they were in error in dismissing the claim
  of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• the district court improperly dismissed Baird's
  claim of intentional infliction of emotional
  distress.

10
Rationale/Reasoning

• Discrimination
• Sole reason for discrimination versus motivating
  factor
• McNely v. Ocala ADA does not require a solely
  standard to qualify as discrimination
• Title VII of Civil Rights Act unlawful for
  disability to be a motivating factor for
  employment decisions
• Public versus private
• Title II of ADA a cause of action for
  discrimination only applies to public entities,
  not private individuals

11
Rationale/Reasoning

• Intentional infliction of emotional distress
• Virginia law there is not enough evidence to
  rule out intentional infliction of emotional
  distress
• Intentional or reckless
• Outrageous and intolerableoffends decency and
  morality
• Caused emotional distress
• Distress was severe

12
Significance

• Needs for more concrete definition of what
  legally constitutes severe emotional distress
• Post-hoc application of a neutral rule
• Private individuals v public entities