Tyler v. Kalamazoo Pub. Schs.

1

PATRICIA TYLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KALAMAZOO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 363249

Court of Appeals of Michigan

January 18, 2024

UNPUBLISHED

Kalamazoo Circuit Court LC No. 2022-000122-CZ

Before: REDFORD, P.J., and RIORDAN and FEENEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Patricia Tyler, appeals by right the trial court's order granting defendant, Kalamazoo Public Schools (KPS), summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). She contends that she established a genuine issue of material fact whether KPS violated Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act^[1] (PWDCRA), MCL 37.1101 et seq. and Michigan's Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA) MCL 15.361 et seq. She also argues that the trial court erred by ruling that her constitutional claims were moot. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This matter arose after KPS declined to give plaintiff an exemption to its mask mandate. In the 2021-2022 school year, KPS's Board of Education (the Board) adopted a mask policy in response to the then-ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The Board resumed in-person instruction for its approximately 13,000 students and required them and the KPS employees to wear masks in its schools in all public spaces, including classrooms.

Plaintiff is a tenured special education teacher employed by KPS and she worked at the Hillside Middle School at times relevant to this case. In November 2021, plaintiff requested and KPS granted her a seven-day leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 USC 2601 et seq. Following the leave, plaintiff returned to work and requested an accommodation in relation to the mask mandate. In support of her request, plaintiff submitted two notes from her physician, Dr. Joseph A. Bruno, dated November 4, 2021. The first note stated that "[patient] should have ample mask breaks when safely able to do so, due to anxiety and overheating." The second note explained that Dr. Bruno treated plaintiff for anxiety and that she could return to work on November 9, 2021. Neither of Dr. Bruno's notes stated that plaintiff should be exempt from wearing a mask during work, or intimated that she could not wear a mask, or diagnosed a disability that required anything more than periodic breaks from mask wearing when safely able to do so.

On November 10, 2021, Dr. Patricia Ponto, a licensed psychologist, sent an e-mail to KPS Compliance Specialist, Daniel Emmons, to affirm that plaintiff took time off work related to her anxiety. Dr. Ponto recommended that plaintiff take an additional day off. Dr. Ponto further stated in the e-mail that plaintiff "may require further time off as things proceed, but I am hopeful that this break has been in her best interests and that she is ready to return to school at this time." Dr. Ponto's e-mail made no reference to additional accommodations. KPS adopted and implemented Dr. Bruno's recommendation that plaintiff receive breaks from wearing a mask between classes and during her lunch break.

In February 2022, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued guidance lifting a mask advisory in indoor public settings including schools. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) removed its mask requirement for public transportation on February 25, 2022. A week later, on March 4, 2022, plaintiff e-mailed KPS Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, Sheila Dorsey-Smith, to request a mask exemption. In the e-mail, plaintiff stated:

In light of the rapidly changing Coronavirus data, I would like to ask for a mask exemption effective immediately based on recommendations from: Kalamazoo County Health & Community Services, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, The CDC, The Kalamazoo Judge that halted the mandate for Comstock Schools, and a note from my personal physician submitted to Dan Emmons on November 10, 2021.

Plaintiff attached Dr. Bruno's November 4, 2021 note to her e-mail, but she provided no other documentation to support her request for an exemption from wearing a mask.

Assistant Superintendent Dorsey-Smith denied plaintiff's mask exemption request, and in an e-mail written response on March 17, 2021, noted that KPS already provided plaintiff an accommodation. Assistant Superintendent Dorsey-Smith further stated,

If you cannot wear a mask and you have supporting documentation from a doctor, you may use sick leave as long as you have the medical documentation to do so. If that document doesn't exist, you may request an unpaid leave. Further, you may chose [sic] to retire or resign.

The e-mail directed plaintiff to submit medical documentation to KPS's compliance specialist.

The record indicates that on March 15, 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against KPS, asserting three counts: (1) KPS exceeded its statutory authority when it promulgated and enforced a mask mandate, (2) the Michigan Revised School Code did not authorize a mask mandate, and (3) KPS ignored plaintiff's medical exemption from her doctor. Plaintiff also filed an ex parte emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, but the trial court denied it.^[2]

On March 17, 2022, Assistant Superintendent Dorsey-Smith received a report that plaintiff refused to wear a mask in the presence of her students in her classroom and in common areas in the school. The report stated further that plaintiff refused to allow her students with special needs into her classroom to receive services on March 16, 2022, and she failed to report to any of her coteaching classes. Based on this report, Assistant Superintendent Dorsey-Smith placed plaintiff on paid administrative leave pending an investigation. Assistant Superintendent Dorsey-Smith spoke with plaintiff, who admitted that she did not wear a mask "because [she] didn't want to." Assistant Superintendent Dorsey-Smith issued plaintiff a letter of reprimand for insubordination, and warned that "any further actions of insubordination or misconduct will result in additional disciplinary action, up to and including discharge."

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 2, 2022, in which she alleged 10 counts against KPS including: (1) violation of the PWDCRA through disability discrimination, (2) violation of the WPA, (3) KPS exceeded its statutory authority when it promulgated and enforced a mask mandate, (4) the Michigan Revised School Code did not authorize a mask mandate, (5) KPS ignored plaintiff's medical exemption from her doctor, (6) KPS's mask mandate violated the constitutional right to bodily integrity, (7) KPS's mask mandate violated the constitutional right to equal protection of the law, (8) KPS's mask mandate violated the constitutional right to privacy and liberty, (9) KPS's mask mandate violated plaintiff's state due-process rights to liberty and privacy, and (10) KPS's mask mandate violated the nondelegation doctrine.

After filing this lawsuit, plaintiff served the remainder of the school year and received her full compensation. Plaintiff received an "effective" evaluation for her performance during the 2021-2022 school year.^[3] KPS rescinded its mask mandate on May 26, 2022. The school district indicated it chose to continue its mask mandate until that date out of concern that students and staff could spread COVID-19 after the school community returned from spring break.

On July 28, 2022, KPS moved for summary disposition, asserting that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding plaintiff's claims under the PWDCRA and the WPA. Further, KPS asserted that the remainder of plaintiff's constitutional claims were moot because KPS had rescinded its mask mandate. Plaintiff opposed KPS's motion and submitted an affidavit from her psychologist, Dr. Ponto, which stated that she diagnosed plaintiff with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression and treated her since 2018 to help her cope "with anxiety, stress, frustration, and depression [plaintiff] has experienced in the last few years, largely as [a] result of difficulties at school." Dr. Ponto attested that plaintiff "struggled with wearing a mask because of the physical symptoms that are related to her anxiety-she struggles to breathe, becomes congested, and experiences some claustrophobia. Her anxiety about the mask has interfered with her sleep." Dr. Ponto also attested that plaintiff "worked hard to find masks that enabled her to breathe more easily, but still found wearing the mask all day, every day to be very, very difficult and stress inducing."

The trial court granted KPS summary disposition regarding plaintiff's claims under the PWDCRA and the WPA and dismissed the remainder of plaintiff's claims as moot. Plaintiff now appeals.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We review de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). Dressel v Ameribank, 468 Mich. 557; 561; 664 N.W.2d 151 (2003). Under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a party is entitled to summary disposition when the evidence does not present a genuine issue of material fact. Jewett v Mesick Consol Sch Dist, 332 Mich.App. 462, 470; 957 N.W.2d 377 (2020). "A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ." MacDonald v Ottawa Co, 335 Mich.App 618, 622; 967 N.W.2d 919 (2021) (quotations marks and citation omitted). "The reviewing court should evaluate a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) by considering the substantively admissible evidence actually proffered in opposition to the motion." Jewett, 332 Mich.App. at 470 (quotation marks and citation omitted). This includes "affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties." Corley v Detroit Bd of Ed, 470 Mich....