Bourne Public Schools Accused Of Discrimination; MCAD To Hear Case
An ongoing debacle surrounding the dismissal of a former Bourne Middle School adjustment counselor has only gotten muddier following recent developments regarding the former employee’s unemployment insurance claims.
Katherine M. Lockwood, a Sandwich resident, claims that the Bourne School District violated state and federal laws protecting disabled and pregnant workers after the district repeatedly denied her requests to work from home and later dismissed Ms. Lockwood from her position. The issue has now reached the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, a state entity tasked with enforcing the Massachusetts anti-discrimination laws.
Despite being pregnant and disabled, both of which increase her risk for infection, Ms. Lockwood said the school district repeatedly denied her repeated requests throughout the summer and fall of 2021 for special accommodations that would allow her to remain remote for the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year.
In February, Ms. Lockwood filed an official complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, or MCAD, for the repeated denial of her remote work requests for the 2021-22 school year. As a neutral entity, MCAD investigates discrimination complaints, adjudicates and prosecutes cases, and provides preventative and conciliatory training measures.
Ms. Lockwood believes that she was discriminated against on the basis of her disability, as BPS failed to engage properly with the interactive process required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to the ADA, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of a qualified individual with a disability unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on business operations. An undue hardship, in this instance, is defined as one that is significantly difficult or expensive for the employer.
Ms. Lockwood also believes that she was retaliated against for actively advocating for herself against the school district, as well as speaking to multiple news outlets. As a former employee of the Cape Organization for Rights of the Disabled, Ms. Lockwood said she is all too familiar with the rights awarded to disabled persons and was not shy about being her own advocate in the face of pushback from the district when it came to determining what would be a “reasonable accommodation.”
“I’m not going to stay quiet,” she said. “I have an obligation to not stay quiet. The first article was to share my story and help me with this process, but the rest of them and going forward, [this] is about the whole disability community and making sure that their voice is heard. If we need to make people value us, we will make people value us.”
In an email to the Enterprise, Ms. Lockwood said the first meeting with the assigned MCAD hearing officer is scheduled for September 12.
Additionally, Ms. Lockwood said she filed for unemployment benefits at the end of March but was alerted on April 4 via phone by the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) that there was a problem with her claim—the problem being that Bourne Public Schools contested the claim that she was dismissed. Ms. Lockwood said she was told over the phone by DUA that the district contended that she quit her position, rather than being dismissed, which barred her from receiving benefits for over three months until the situation was assessed by DUA.
“I should get unemployment benefits,” she said. “I didn’t do anything terrible. I got fired because I have a disability and I asked for accommodation.”
Documentation provided by Ms. Lockwood from DUA shows that Ms. Lockwood was granted benefits on July 6 that backdated to January 23, 2022, since DUA found that Ms. Lockwood’s reason for leaving work due to physical inability to resume regular duties was involuntary. About a week after receiving communication regarding the granting of her benefits, Ms. Lockwood was alerted that an appeal was filed by her former employer—which is the Town of Bourne, rather than the school district specifically—protesting the determination to grant benefits. A hearing on the topic will be held in the future, with a time and date to be determined. DUA documentation recommended that Ms. Lockwood prepare for the hearing and stated that should Ms. Lockwood be disqualified from collecting benefits, she will be required to pay back any unemployment money she previously collected.
Bourne Public Schools did respond to recent requests for comment but was not able to provide commentary before deadline. In a July 20 email to the Enterprise, Dr. Zhou stated that she was researching the issue. She said the Enterprise’s inquiry regarding the unemployment claim is the first she had heard of it being contested.
It is not clear whether the town or school district is still contending that Ms. Lockwood quit her position. A July 21 phone conversation with Bourne Town Administrator Marlene V. McCollem, however, served to clarify some of the details surrounding the unemployment insurance claim.
Ms. McCollem said the Town of Bourne contracts with the Unemployment Tax Management Corporation (UTMC), an external company that is fully authorized to act in the town’s capacity to protect its fiduciary interests. Essentially, the company works to minimize the unemployment tax costs of its clients, which, in this case, is the Town of Bourne. Ms. McCollem was not familiar enough with the specific case to provide detailed commentary, but she clarified that the town is a bit removed from the process, since individual cases are managed by advisors from the contracted company.
According to documentation from DUA provided by Ms. McCollem, a July 6 determination was issued saying that Ms. Lockwood’s separation from employment was determined to be involuntary without good cause attributable to the employer. Per Massachusetts General Law, employers will not be charged for benefits paid in accordance with such a determination provided that the employer submits a timely protest in response. It appears as though the appeal that Ms. Lockwood was notified of on July 18 was filed in accordance with this piece of legislation by an advisor from UTMC.
In a June 29 email to the Enterprise, Superintendent Dr. Kerri Anne Quinlan-Zhou said BPS recently filed a position statement, a mandatory filing as part of the MCAD adjudication process, that provides the district’s response to the allegations made by Ms. Lockwood and its legal arguments disputing the allegations, she said. That filing is not a matter of public record at this time, as MCAD considers the case to be in the “predetermination” phase, meaning an investigative disposition has not yet been issued.
While BPS is legally prohibited from addressing the specific allegations and legal arguments presented to MCAD, Dr. Zhou denied the allegations on behalf of the school district.
“BPS denies that the district discriminated against Ms. Lockwood on the basis of a disability, pregnancy, or any other protected class,” Dr. Zhou wrote. “BPS also denies that it retaliated against Ms. Lockwood for requesting an accommodation. BPS complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination statute at all times with respect to Ms. Lockwood’s employment.”
Ms. Lockwood began working as a school adjustment counselor at the middle school in late 2019. As a disabled person dealing with several medical conditions, including cystic fibrosis, she was considered to be immunocompromised. Ms. Lockwood worked remotely with students throughout the 2020-21 school year and had said she was planning to return to in-person work for the 2021-22 year. However, when she became pregnant via in-vitro fertilization toward the end of summer in 2021, the surge of the Delta variant caused Ms. Lockwood to alter her original plans following the recommendations of her doctors, as she was at even greater risk of infection now that she was pregnant.
Ms. Lockwood said that in August 2021 Dr. Zhou denied her request and informed her that no work-from-home accommodations would be made, since students would be returning to school in person.
The only option the district offered, Ms. Lockwood said, was for her to accept an unpaid year-long leave of absence, which she said was not a financially feasible option for her and her family. Through the use of her personal sick time and sick time from the sick bank through the Bourne Educators Association, Ms. Lockwood was able to stay on paid leave through December, which also allowed her to keep her medical insurance.
Additional requests to work remotely were denied throughout the fall, which is when Ms. Lockwood submitted a final request to receive unpaid leave in December, as previously offered by the school district, for the remainder of the school year with the anticipation of returning to work the next school year. According to Ms. Lockwood, Dr. Zhou responded to her email request a few days later, denying her request for unpaid leave for the remainder of the 2021 school year and informing her that the district was beginning the termination process due to Ms. Lockwood’s incapacity to return to school in person. At that point, Ms. Lockwood was given the option to resign, which she said she was not willing to do.
A letter of dismissal was issued to Ms. Lockwood on January 26, which Ms. Lockwood shared with the Enterprise. In the letter, Dr. Zhou says that the grounds for dismissal were based on Ms. Lockwood’s inability to return to work full-time and in-person for the 2021-22 school year as required by her position.
“A remote assignment is not a reasonable accommodation request due to the fact that we need to have someone in-person in your role as school adjustment counselor,” Dr. Zhou wrote. “As such, I am left with the difficult position of moving forward with dismissal due to incapacity.”
Dr. Zhou also informed Ms. Lockwood that her willingness to return to school for the start of the 2022-23 school year would impose an “undue hardship for the district,” as it would require the district to leave the position open as a long-term substitute in the hope that Ms. Lockwood would return in September 2022.
In February, Ms. Lockwood filed the complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination for the repeated denial of her remote work requests. She contends the Bourne school district violated federal and state laws that protect disabled and pregnant workers and obligate employers to honor reasonable requests for workplace accommodations. Further, Ms. Lockwood believes that she was retaliated against for submitting a request for reasonable accommodation and advocating for herself.
“They took away my career,” she said. “They fired me because they were mad that I said something about how I had rights, but I said something. And if I hadn’t said something about that, if I had just stayed on the sidelines, I would still have a job there.”