In 2006, Mark Bellerose started work at a school as a custodian. The following year Bellerose received his only annual performance appraisal. He was rated “Very Good” and “Outstanding”, receiving a total of 52 points out of 55.
Over the course of his employment, Bellerose made multiple oral complaints to various different people about the conditions at the school and the supervisor’s failure to address them. For example, one time Bellerose reported that his supervisor made no attempt to shut off the water supply to the school when the power was out for days. He also reported instances of mold growing on classroom walls, ice dams on the roof and even the school’s failure to inspect the smoke alarm system.
At one point, Bellerose received a warning about his failure to follow the correct “chain of command”. However, according to Bellerose, he was never notified of a chain of command. After the verbal warning, he received a written warning where he was reprimanded for failing to “complete the task of snow removal” during a holiday break. It should be noted that there was never a need to shovel snow because it didn’t snow during that week.
Bellerose received a “final warning” for using profanity in front of a citizen and two children. He was able to obtain statements from two other school employees who denied ever hearing him say anything inappropriate.
After learning that his Asperger’s could potentially qualify him for a disability, Bellerose provided info about his condition to the principal. A few months later, the principal informed Bellerose that his contract would not be renewed because his “Asperger’s got in the way of [his] ability to interact with [his] boss, and we are tired of it.”
The school argued that Bellerose didn’t have Asperger’s during the relevant time period and that he wouldn’t qualify under the ADA for disability. Unfortunately for the school, Asperger’s is defined as a lifetime condition that substantially limits life activities including social interaction. The court concluded that the school district’s evidence that it did not renew his contract for reasons outside of his disability just created a credibility determination for a jury to sort out at trial.
The court concluded that Bellerose’s submission of documents merely explaining what Asperger’s is wasn’t an explicit request for a reasonable accommodation. It was also noted that Bellerose didn’t allege that his provision of the information was related in any way to his warning letters or his write-ups for behavior.
In order for Bellerose’s wrongful termination claim to proceed to trial, Bellerose would have to establish that the school terminated him in bad faith. The court allowed his wrongful discharge claim to proceed because the school district failed to challenge the public policy element of his claim.
HR experts urge employers to understand that an employee with Asperger’s may be able to point to “sufficient facts to prove that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA.” This can pose a dilemma for an employer since it could become their responsibility to accommodate them.