Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-01367
THE ESTATE OF SARAH STAEBELL, BY AND THROUGH SARAH PROCHASKA, THE
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE;
and
ELIZABETH RENDALL,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

The Estate of Sarah Staebell and Elizabeth Rendall, through their attorneys, Paula
Greisen, Meredith A. Munro, and Laura E. Schwartz, with the firm of King & Greisen, LLP,
submit this Complaint and Jury Demand against Defendant Douglas County School District RE1 (the “District”), and allege as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1.

This is a systemic employment disability discrimination and retaliation suit

brought by two former District employees. Ms. Staebell was a fifth grade teacher who was
diagnosed with colon cancer in December 2012. Ms. Rendall was a special education teacher
who developed a breathing problem, requiring the use of the portable oxygen tank. Although
both women had ongoing disabilities and/or perceived disabilities, each was able to perform the

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 25

essential functions of her position with reasonable accommodations. Nonetheless, the District
wrongfully terminated both women. Upon information and belief, the District engages in a
pattern and practice of discrimination based on disabilities and retaliates for the assertion of
federal statutory rights under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12117
(“ADAAA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794
(“Section 504”).
2.

Ms. Staebell was terminated when she requested intermittent leave under the

Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, for her second round of
chemotherapy. The District also refused to provide additional leave under the ADAAA, forcing
Ms. Staebell to take disability retirement under the Public Employees’ Retirement Association
(“PERA”).
3.

Ms. Rendall suffered the same fate when the District refused to allow her to return

from her FMLA leave because of her portable oxygen tank. As with Ms. Staebell, the District
forced Ms. Rendall to take disability retirement under PERA. Plaintiffs are aware of at least one
other employee who was forced onto PERA disability retirement under similar circumstances.
4.

On information and belief, the District targets employees for termination when it

appears those employees’ disabilities and accommodations will result in higher costs to the
District. Also on information and belief, if an employee is unable to immediately return from
FMLA, the District terminates his or her employment shortly thereafter.
5.

Ms. Staebell brings claims against the District pursuant to the ADAAA, FMLA,

and Section 504.
6.

Ms. Rendall brings claims against the District pursuant to Section 504.

2

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 25

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7.

This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

8.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

9.

Venue lies in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as all of the unlawful

employment practices alleged herein occurred in the State of Colorado.
10.

Ms. Staebell has satisfied all procedural prerequisites for filing suit. Ms. Staebell

timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADAAA. Ms. Staebell
subsequently received her Notice of Right to Sue. This Complaint and Jury Demand is being
filed within 90 days of Ms. Staebell’s receiving the Notice. Thus, under 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a),
which incorporates by reference 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), as well as under 29 U.S.C. § 626(d),
she has satisfied all procedural prerequisites for filing suit.
11.

Because Ms. Rendall is filing under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, not the

ADAAA, no procedural requirements were required to be satisfied.
III. PARTIES
– PLAINTIFF SARAH STAEBELL –
12.

The Estate of the Plaintiff Sarah Staebell brings its claim through Sarah

Prochaska, who is the Personal Representative of the Estate. Because Ms. Staebell only recently
passed away, the probate proceedings are still in process.
13.

At all relevant times, Ms. Staebell’s colon cancer substantially limited her major

bodily functions, including the functions of her immune system, digestive system, and normal
cell growth. For intermittent periods during her chemotherapy treatment and recovery from that

3

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 25

treatment, Ms. Staebell was also substantially limited in her major life activities, including her
ability to perform manual tasks, eat, sleep, and stand. Ms. Staebell was thus a “qualified
individual with a disability,” or alternatively was regarded as such, as defined by the ADAAA
and the Rehabilitation Act. Ms. Staebell also had a history of disability.
14.

At all relevant times, Ms. Staebell was a United States citizen, residing in Douglas

County, Colorado, and was employed by the District. She was, therefore, an “employee” under
the ADAAA.
15.

At all relevant times, Ms. Staebell was protected by the Rehabilitation Act of

1973, as amended, by virtue of her employment with the District, a recipient of federal funding.
16.

At all relevant times, Ms. Staebell suffered from Stage IV colon cancer and

therefore had a serious health condition, as defined by the FMLA. She was also an “eligible
employee” as defined by the FMLA because she had been employed by the District for at least
12 months and worked at least 1,250 hours during the twelve months preceding the termination
of her employment.
– PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH RENDALL –
17.

At all relevant times, Elizabeth Rendall was a United States citizen, who is and

was, an individual residing in Jefferson County, Colorado, and was employed by the District.
18.

Ms. Rendall has a breathing disability that affected her major life activity of

breathing, requiring the use of a portable machine that provides her with oxygen. At all relevant
times, by virtue of her breathing disorder, Ms. Rendall was a “qualified individual with a
disability” or was alternatively regarded as such pursuant to the ADAAA and the Rehabilitation
Act. Ms. Rendall also had a history of disability.

4

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 25

19.

At all relevant times, Ms. Rendall was protected by the Rehabilitation Act of

1973, as amended, by virtue of her employment with the District, a recipient of federal funding.
20.

At all relevant times, Ms. Rendall was an “employee” of the District as defined by

the ADA and was a non-probationary special education teacher at the time of her termination.
– DEFENDANT THE DISTRICT–
21.

Defendant District is a body corporate and subdivision of the State of Colorado

exercising independent powers exclusively delegated to school districts by Article IX, section 15
of the Colorado Constitution. Defendant District was formed in 1958 through the consolidation
of seventeen smaller school districts. At all relevant times, Defendant District was located in
Colorado.
22.

At all relevant times, the District was engaged in an industry affecting commerce

that employed fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more
calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. The District is therefore an “employer”
under the ADAAA.
23.

The District receives federal funds in excess of $10,000. Therefore, its employees

are protected under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
24.

At all relevant times, the District was a “local education agency” and therefore, an

“employer” under the FMLA.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
– SARAH STAEBELL –
25.

Ms. Staebell had been continuously employed by Defendant District since 1999.

5

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 25

26.

Ms. Staebell began working for the District as a full-time classroom teacher in

1999. Until July 30, 2014, Ms. Staebell was a fifth grade teacher at Northeast Elementary School
in the District. Ms. Staebell was designated several times by the District as an “outstanding
teacher,” and was loved and respected by her students and colleagues at Northeast Elementary
School.
27.

In 2012, Ms. Staebell was diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer.

28.

Ms. Staebell’s treatment plan required her to take FMLA leave from

approximately December 2013 to September 2013, during which time one substitute teacher
covered her class during her absence.
29.

Ms. Staebell came back to work full-time in September 2013.

30.

Ms. Staebell worked without incident until she learned that her cancer had

returned in January 2014.
31.

In February 2014, Ms. Staebell was approved for an experimental treatment

protocol that included chemotherapy. She took intermittent FMLA leave from February 2014 to
the end of the 2014 school year during which she was out of the classroom for three consecutive
days every two weeks for chemotherapy treatment and recovery.
32.

The same substitute teacher who had covered Ms. Staebell’s leave in 2013 also

covered her intermittent leave in 2014.
33.

Ms. Staebell’s supervisor, Principal Jeannie Tynecki, and others in the District

made it clear to Ms. Staebell that they were unhappy with Ms. Staebell’s use of the FMLA leave
and pressured her to quit.

6

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 25

34.

For example, during one of a series of meetings between Ms. Staebell and the

District during the spring of 2014, Principal Tynecki told Ms. Staebell that she “cannot do this
again” and suggested that Ms. Staebell quit teaching. Principal Tynecki affirmed that Ms.
Staebell was an excellent teacher. Principal Tynecki nonetheless opined–without any factual
support–that Ms. Staebell’s medical leave was “not good for kids” because the kids “must worry
about her.”
35.

On information and belief, Ms. Staebell’s need for and use of intermittent leave

did not cause any undue hardship on the District.
36.

In a meeting on or around March 20, 2014, the District presented Ms. Staebell

with a document titled, “Settlement Agreement, Waiver, and Release” (the “Proposed Settlement
Agreement”) which it claimed was in her “best interest.” The Proposed Settlement Agreement
obligated Ms. Staebell to release any and all legal claims against the District and resign from her
position as a full-time classroom teacher in exchange for a transfer to a substitute teacher
position for the 2014-2015 school year.
37.

At this meeting, the District told Ms. Staebell that it would not approve

intermittent FMLA leave once the 2013-2014 school year ended. If Ms. Staebell needed
additional FMLA leave, the District would force her to take her remaining FMLA leave time as
block leave. As the school was made aware, Ms. Staebell’s current course of treatment was
probably going to extend into August 2014. Thus it was likely that Ms. Staebell would need to
continue intermittent leave during that month. As the District was aware, by forcing her to take
the entire month of August as a block time instead of intermittent leave, Ms. Staebell would
quickly exhaust her FMLA leave.

7

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 25

38.

The District told Ms. Staebell at this March 20, 2014 meeting that when she did

exhaust her leave, the District would place her on inactive status with no pay or benefits,
including health insurance. The District knew or should have known that Ms. Staebell was then a
single mother with two young children, had substantial medical bills as a result of her cancer,
and thus needed her medical insurance. Again, the District refused to consider time off as an
accommodation under the ADAAA. The District thus presented Ms. Staebell with a Hobson’s
choice: she could accept the Agreement or lose her medical insurance.
39.

Ms. Staebell sought legal counsel to assert her rights against unlawful

discrimination by the District. Ms. Staebell and her counsel complained to the District that Ms.
Staebell was being treated unfairly because of her disability and continued to assert Ms.
Staebell’s rights under FMLA and the ADAAA.
40.

In retaliation, Principal Tynecki began to increasingly micro-manage Ms.

Staebell’s performance and to criticize her for things other teachers did without consequence. For
example, Principal Tynecki reprimanded Ms. Staebell for having her own children present in the
school building for thirty minutes on a staff development day and for having her teammate cover
the administration of a state-mandated test with the approval of the testing coordinator.
41.

Ms. Tynecki also began asking Ms. Staebell’s colleagues personal questions about

Ms. Staebell’s employment status and career intentions given her health.
42.

Despite her cancer and need for intermittent FMLA leave, Ms. Staebell received a

rating of “effective” on her evaluation for the 2013-14 school year.
43.

On or around the last day of school, on June 5, 2014, Ms. Staebell confirmed with

the District that she intended to return to school for the 2014-2015 school year. She again

8

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 25

requested intermittent FMLA leave for the month of August or, alternatively, intermittent leave
as an accommodation under the ADAAA. She provided the District with a medical certification
in which her doctor explained she would need intermittent leave for the month of August
consisting of three consecutive days off every two weeks for chemotherapy treatment (the same
leave she had requested and received for the spring of 2014).
44.

The District responded that it would not provide Ms. Staebell with intermittent

leave or otherwise accommodate her disability by providing her with the requested intermittent
time off and would force Ms. Staebell to take block leave, eventually leading to her termination
of employment.
45.

On July 16, 2014, Ms. Staebell’s counsel made an offer on her behalf to the

District. Generally, the offer was that Ms. Staebell be assigned an alternative teaching position
for a home bound student who could not return to school until January 2015 and that she also be
placed on the substitute teacher list.
46.

The District rejected Ms. Staebell’s offer on July 18, 2014, and told her that the

Proposed Settlement Agreement was no longer being offered to her. Instead, the District offered
Ms. Staebell a nominal dollar amount in exchange for her acceptance of Colorado PERA
disability retirement benefits and her release of all legal claims against the District. The District
made this offer on a Friday and said it was conditioned on her acceptance of the offer by 5:00
p.m. the following Monday, July 21, 2014.
47.

Having little choice, Ms. Staebell accepted the District’s offer in writing before

5:00 p.m. on July 21, 2014.

9

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 25

48.

In reliance on the agreement between the parties, Ms. Staebell notified PERA of

her acceptance of disability retirement and submitted to the District on July 30, 2014 (through
her counsel), a notice terminating her service with the District so that she could begin to receive
her PERA disability retirement benefits.
49.

On or about July 22, 2014, the District sent Ms. Staebell a written agreement

which had several material terms that were never previously agreed to by the parties, including a
no-rehire provision and a release of claims, as well as other material changes.
50.

On or about July 25, 2014, Ms. Staebell notified the District that the new material

terms were not a part of the agreement and that the District needed to honor the contract to which
the parties had entered into on July 21, 2015.
51.

On July 31, 2014, Ms. Staebell’s counsel requested confirmation of the District’s

receipt of her termination of service, explaining the necessity for finalizing all paperwork that
day so that there would be no significant delay in her receipt of disability retirement benefits, in
accordance with the contact reached between Ms. Staebell and the District.
52.

On September 11, 2014, Ms. Staebell sent the District an executed settlement

agreement pursuant to terms reached between the parties on July 21, 2014.
53.

In response, on September 12, 2014, the District stated that it had “reached a

resolution with Sarah,” mischaracterizing her notice of termination (made in compliance with the
July 21, 2014 Agreement) as a unilateral decision to retire.
54.

When Ms. Staebell’s counsel informed the District that Ms. Staebell expected the

District to abide by the contract the parties reached on July 21, 2014, the District then sent
another version of the contract to her counsel that again contained new material terms, including

10

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 25

a non-disparagement clause. The District informed Ms. Staebell that it would not abide by the
original terms of the July 21, 2014 Agreement.
– ELIZABETH RENDALL –
55.

Ms. Rendall has been a special education teacher since 1994. She began working

for the School District in January 2005 as an SSN teacher (Significant Support Needs), a
position she held until July 2011, when she became an SED teacher (Serious Emotional
Disability).
56.

Ms. Rendall continued as an SED teacher until she was forced out of work. She

is passionate about serving this sector of students and loves her work and its challenges.
57.

On April 9, 2014, Ms. Rendall was diagnosed with pneumonia. Two weeks

later she and her physician completed paperwork so that she could be on medical leave with
FMLA protection. The leave was granted. The initial leave was for 30 days. At the end of the
30 days, Ms. Rendall still had pneumonia and her leave extended to the end of the school year
in May 2014.
58.

On the students’ last day of school, she went to the school to say good-bye to

her 6th graders and some staff members not returning the next school year. Ms. Rendall was
using her oxygen tank. That same day, the Assistant Principal, Robin Fender, came to see her.
There was a discussion about the difficulties for SED students in having substitute teachers.
During the conversation, Fender said, “Beth why don’t you just quit? That would make this
easier for all of US.”
59.

Ms. Rendall refused to resign.

11

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 25

60.

Ms. Rendall now wears a lightweight oxygen concentrator, and no longer

carries oxygen tanks. An oxygen concentrator pulls oxygen from the surrounding air. It lasts
between eight and nine hours before the battery needs to be replaced. Ms. Rendall always
carries at least one extra battery. Ms. Rendall is able to change out the battery in approximately
one minute. The use of oxygen concentrators is widespread.
61.

On June 26, 2014, an x-ray showed that she no longer had pneumonia. Ms.

Rendall’s pulmonologist, Dr. Catherine Wittman, released her back to work with one
accommodation—that she use a backpack oxygen tank.
62.

Accordingly, Ms. Rendall went to her school the week before school started to

begin preparing for the school year. She worked for two full days.
63.

During that time, she spoke with both Fender and the Principal, Phillip Ranford.

64.

On the third morning, she took her Return to Work form to the Principal for his

signature. But, the Principal told her, “I don’t think I can sign this.”
65.

During this discussion Fender once again urged her to “just quit.” Ms. Rendall

refused.
66.

In approximately an hour, Phillip Ranford, under the direction of Cathy

Franklin (Employee Relations Manager), ordered Ms. Rendall to go home and stay there until
she heard from someone. Ms. Rendall left and, as of this Complaint, was never allowed to
return to work despite being medically released to do so and was ultimately terminated.
67.

In July 2014, Donna Trujillo, the Director of Personalized Learning, Special

Education, told Fender to draft an SED job description specific to Sand Creek where Ms.

12

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 25

Rendall taught. The new job description identified Sand Creek by name, and contained the
following additions:


Walk 100 yards up/down ramps and stairs several times a day.



Consistently be able to respond quickly to a location inside or outside the
building that may be up to 500 yards away to supervise and maintain
student safety during behavioral outbursts.



Be able to pursue students who are in flight to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the student and other staff members at an accelerated pace.



Frequently restrain students (alone or with assistance) weighing over 50
pounds to maintain student safety and the safety of other students and staff
in the building, for unknown lengths of time.



Occasionally duck/react quickly to objects thrown by student during
outbursts such as chairs, desks, ‘bookcases, and other educational
equipment.



Frequently crouch, bend over, be low to ground and kneel, reach
overhead, balance self and student.



Continually stand for up to 30 minutes or more at a time.



Occasionally prepare room by relocating various tables, chairs or other
related equipment.

68.

On or about August 4, 2014, Deb Nowotny, from Standard Insurance, which is

the School District’s disability insurance company, called Ms. Rendall. Her job is to assist

13

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 25

employees who need accommodations to return to work. Ms. Rendall and Nowotny met on or
about August 5, 2014.
69.

Nowotny provided Ms. Rendall with the new job description, and using this new

job description, told her the oxygen tank and tubing were an unacceptable safety risk in the SED
environment.
70.

Upon information and belief, Nowotny decided—without undertaking any

research or investigation—that the oxygen tank was a potential weapon and, therefore, Ms.
Rendall was a direct threat to her students and herself.
71.

Yet, Ms. Rendall’s classroom was already filled with potential weapons,

including: a microwave oven, an iHome docking station, and a CD player, all with electrical
cords. The classroom also had several iPads and computers with cords for charging. Teachers
and assistants also wear their DCSD badges on lanyards around their necks, as well as
earrings, necklaces, and scarves.
72.

If the District treated students who required an oxygen tank to provide

supplemental oxygen, they would be in violation of the ADAAA and the Rehabilitation Act.
Under the District’s policies those students would also present an unacceptable risk of danger
to themselves and others. Their tubes could also be removed or used against them by another
student.
73.

Nowotny also told Ms. Rendall she had a meeting the next day with the

Benefits team (apparently to make a “final” decision) and someone from the District would let
her know the outcome.

14

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 25

74.

Franklin called to tell Ms. Rendall she would no longer be working for the

District.
75.

On October 27, 2014, Cathy Franklin, the School District’s Employee

Relations Manager, spoke with Ms. Rendall by telephone and told her that she had exhausted
her FMLA, and her leave would not be extended. The two options presented by Franklin to
Ms. Rendall were either resign or be terminated by a no-fault dismissal.
76.

On November 7, 2014, Franklin wrote to Ms. Rendall, documenting the

October 27, 2014, conversation and saying she, Franklin, would resign for Ms. Rendall if she
did not receive a decision by November 11, 2014. Ms. Rendall left a voice mail and emailed
that she was not resigning.
77.

The District then back-tracked and said she could return in January 2015 provided

she was no longer on oxygen.
78.

In November and December 2014, Ms. Rendall was notified that because she had

not returned to work when her FMLA leave ended, she had to repay, in full, her health insurance
premium for November and December 2014. When Ms. Rendall asked for documentation of the
policy requiring her to repay health insurance premium, the District did not produce any relevant
information.
79.

In approximately December 2014, Franklin told Ms. Rendall that she would be

placed in one of several Mild/Moderate, Learning Specialist, positions coming available in the
spring.
80.

On or about December 15, 2014, Donna Trujillo, the Director of Personalized

Learning, Special Education, offered Ms. Rendall a special education SSN position for the

15

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 25

Spring Semester at Buffalo Ridge, which Ms. Rendall accepted. However, once Trujillo realized
that Ms. Rendall still required oxygen, she revoked the offer.
81.

In doing so, Trujillo told Ms. Rendall that the School District was only obligated

to “offer what you had.” Trujillo informed Ms. Rendall that Franklin had been wrong to state that
she would be placed in other positions because the School District was only required to offer her
a job that was the same as her last position, either an SED or SSN teacher position.
82.

On or about January 6, 2015, Katie Van Horne, the School District’s ADA

Manager, who works in Risk Management, emailed Ms. Rendall and said she had three questions
she needed answered before she could decide on an accommodation. The three questions
concerned Ms. Rendall’s use of oxygen.
83.

Ms. Rendall never heard from Van Horne again.

84.

Other than the December 2014 offer that the District would reassign Ms. Rendall,

an offer subsequently revoked, the District made no attempt to find Ms. Rendall a comparable
position, despite her also being licensed to teach in “general” classrooms.
85.

When Ms. Rendall asked how she was going to be paid if the District would not

let her work, the District told her to apply for short-term disability benefits and then disability
retirement benefits. Without any income, Ms. Rendall was forced to do just that.
86.

On January 27, 2015, the School District terminated Ms. Rendall’s health benefits

with just four days’ warning, despite knowing she required continuing medical treatment.
87.

Ms. Rendall and at least one other staff member were nearly always in the

classroom.

16

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 25

88.

Special Education professionals have extensive training and in-place plans for

addressing students who become agitated, including but not limited to early intervention, using
special techniques to calm a child and obtaining additional staff members.
V.

LEGAL CLAIMS

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of Title I of the ADAAA–Plaintiff Staebell
89.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

forth herein.
90.

Upon information and belief, the District has a pattern and practice of

discriminating against employees who have disabilities or perceived disabilities under the
ADAAA. As alleged above, the District has discriminated against Ms. Staebell, Ms. Rendall,
and others.
91.

Upon information and belief, the District has a pattern and practice of

discriminating against employees who have a record of a disability; or have a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities or major bodily functions;
or are regarded as having such an impairment.
92.

Ms. Staebell had a record of having colon cancer, which is a disability. That

disease resulted in a physical impairment that substantially limited one or more major life
activities or major bodily functions, including but not limited to bowel function, eating, and
sleeping. The District also regarded Ms. Staebell as having a physical impairment, namely colon
cancer.
93.

During all relevant time periods, Ms. Staebell was a qualified individual with a

disability within the meaning of the ADAAA as a result of her Stage IV colon cancer. Despite
17

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 25

this, Ms. Staebell was able to perform the essential functions of her position with a reasonable
accommodation by way of intermittent time off to undergo and recuperate from her
chemotherapy treatments.
94.

During all relevant time periods, the District discriminated against Ms. Staebell

because of her disability in a number of ways, including without limitation, by:
a.

failing to engage in the interactive process in good faith;

b.

failing to provide Ms. Staebell with a reasonable accommodation for her

disability notwithstanding her requests for a reasonable accommodation, including, but
not limited to intermittent time to undergo and recuperate from her chemotherapy
treatments; and
c.

refusing to honor the Settlement Agreement the parties reached on July 21,

2014, and ultimately forcing Ms. Staebell to retire from her full-time teaching position.
95.

The District engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination based on the

ADAAA.
96.

The District’s actions were engaged in intentionally and willfully, with malice or

in reckless disregard for the federally protected rights of Plaintiff Staebell and other persons with
disabilities.
97.

As a direct and proximate cause of the District’s acts, omissions, and violations

alleged above, Ms. Staebell suffered considerable damages, injuries, and losses.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Retaliation in Violation of the ADAAA–Plaintiff Staebell
98.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

forth herein.
18

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 25

99.

Upon information and belief, the District has a pattern and practice of retaliating

against employees who have asserted their rights under the ADAAA. As alleged above, the
District has retaliated against Ms. Staebell, Ms. Rendall, and others.
100.

Ms. Staebell engaged in protected activity within the meaning of the ADAAA

when she requested a reasonable accommodation for her disability by way of her requests for
intermittent time off to undergo and recuperate from chemotherapy treatments.
101.

The District engaged in a campaign of retaliation and took a series of materially

adverse actions against Ms. Staebell in retaliation for her having engaged in such protected
activity, including but not limited to:
a.

subjecting her to increased scrutiny and criticism for her work-place

performance;
b.

refusing to provide intermittent leave after Plaintiff asserted her rights

under the ADAAA;
c.

withdrawing the Settlement Agreement it offered Ms. Staebell on March

20, 2014;
d.

refusing to recognize the parties’ Agreement dated July 21, 2014, and

requiring Ms. Staebell to retire from her full-time teaching position at the District.
102.

The District’s actions were engaged in intentionally and willfully, with malice or

in reckless disregard for Plaintiff Staebell’s federally protected rights.
103.

As a direct and proximate cause of the District’s acts, omissions, and violations

alleged above, Plaintiff Staebell suffered considerable damages, injuries and losses.

19

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 25

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of the Rehabilitation Act–Both Plaintiffs
104.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

forth herein.
105.

Upon information and belief, the District has a pattern and practice of

discriminating against employees who have a record of a disability; or have a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities or major bodily functions;
or are regarded as having such an impairment.
106.

Ms. Staebell had a record of having colon cancer, which is a disability. That

disease resulted in a physical impairment that substantially limited one or more major life
activities or major bodily functions, including but not limited to bowel function, eating, and
sleeping. The District also regarded Ms. Staebell as having a physical impairment, namely colon
cancer.
107.

During all relevant time periods, Ms. Staebell was a qualified individual with a

disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act as a result of her Stage IV colon cancer.
Despite this, Ms. Staebell was able to perform the essential functions of her position with a
reasonable accommodation by way of intermittent time off to undergo and recuperate from her
chemotherapy treatments.
108.

Because of damage to her pulmonary system and resulting need for supplemental

oxygen, the District regards Ms. Rendall as having a record of disability. Ms. Rendall also has a
physical impairment that substantially limits her major life activities and/or major bodily
functions including but not limited to, breathing, and the functioning of her pulmonary system.

20

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 25

109.

During the relevant time periods, Ms. Rendall was a qualified individual with a

disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act as a result of her pulmonary problems
resulting in her need for supplemental oxygen. Ms. Rendall was able to perform the essential
functions of her position with a reasonable accommodation by wearing a backpack with an
oxygen tank.
110.

During all relevant time periods, Plaintiffs were qualified for their and other

positions at the District.
111.

During all relevant time periods, the District discriminated against Ms. Staebell

because of her disability in a number of ways, including without limitation, by:
a.

failing to engage in the interactive process in good faith;

b.

failing to provide Ms. Staebell with a reasonable accommodation for her

disability notwithstanding her requests for a reasonable accommodation, including, but
not limited to intermittent time to undergo and recuperate from her chemotherapy
treatments;
c.
112.

requiring Ms. Staebell to retire from her full-time teaching position.

During all relevant time periods, the District discriminated against Ms. Rendall

because of her disability in a number of ways, including without limitation, by:
a.

failing to engage in the interactive process in good faith;

b.

failing to provide Ms. Rendall with a reasonable accommodation for her

disability notwithstanding her requests for a reasonable accommodation, including, but
not limited to allowing her to work while wearing a backpack to carry her oxygen tank;
c.

terminating Ms. Rendall’s employment.

21

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 25

113.

The District’s actions were engaged in intentionally and willfully, with malice or

in reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ federally protected rights.
114.

As a direct and proximate cause of the District’s acts, omissions, and violations

alleged above, Plaintiffs have suffered considerable damages, injuries and losses.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Retaliation in Violation of the Rehabilitation Act–Plaintiff Staebell
115.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

forth herein.
116.

Ms. Staebell engaged in protected activity within the meaning of the

Rehabilitation Act when she requested a reasonable accommodation for her disability by way of
her requests for intermittent time off to undergo and recuperate from chemotherapy treatments.
117.

The District engaged in a campaign of retaliation and took a series of materially

adverse actions against Ms. Staebell in retaliation for her having engaged in such protected
activity, including but not limited to:
a.

subjecting her to increased scrutiny and criticism for her work-place

performance;
b.

refusing to provide her with intermittent leave;

c.

refusing to recognize the parties’ Agreement dated July 21, 2014, and

requiring her to retire from her full-time teaching position at the District.
118.

The District’s actions were engaged in intentionally and willfully, with malice or

in reckless disregard for Ms. Staebell’s federally protected rights.
119.

As a direct and proximate cause of the District’s acts, omissions, and violations

alleged above, Plaintiffs have suffered considerable damages, injuries, and losses.
22

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 25

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Retaliation in Violation of the FMLA–Plaintiff Staebell
120.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

forth herein.
121.

Ms. Staebell engaged in protected activity within the meaning of the FMLA when

she requested intermittent leave pursuant to the FMLA to undergo and recover from her
chemotherapy treatment.
122.

The District engaged in a campaign of retaliation and took a series of materially

adverse actions against Ms. Staebell in retaliation for her having engaged in such protected
activity, including but not limited to:
a.

subjecting her to increased scrutiny and criticism for her work-place

performance;
b.

refusing to provide her with intermittent leave;

c.

withdrawing the Settlement Agreement it offered Ms. Staebell on March

20, 2014;
d.

refusing to recognize the parties’ Agreement dated July 21, 2014, and

requiring her to retire from her full-time teaching position at the District.
123.

The District’s adverse actions against Plaintiff Staebell were willful and taken in

retaliation for her exercise of her rights under the FMLA.
124.

The District’s unlawful acts toward Plaintiff Staebell caused her significant

damages, injuries, and losses.

23

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 25

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Interference with FMLA Rights–Plaintiff Staebell
125.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

forth herein.
126.

Ms. Staebell engaged in protected activity within the meaning of the FMLA when

she requested intermittent leave for the 2014-2015 school year. The District interfered with Ms.
Staebell’s right to take FMLA leave by requiring her to take the leave in block time, as opposed
to intermittently.
127.

The District’s adverse actions against Ms. Staebell were willful and taken in

retaliation for her exercise of her rights under the FMLA.
128.

The District’s actions toward Plaintiff Staebell were engaged in intentionally and

willfully, with malice or in reckless disregard for her federally protected rights.
129.

The District’s unlawful acts toward Plaintiff Staebell caused her significant

damages, injuries, and losses.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their
favor and against Defendant, and award the following relief as allowed by law:
a.

Back pay, in amounts to be determined at trial;

b.

Front pay, in lieu of reinstatement;

c.

Compensatory and consequential damages;

d.

Liquidated damages;

e.

Injunctive and/or declaratory relief;

f.

Punitive damages;
24

 Case 1:16-cv-01367 Document 1 Filed 06/07/16 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 25

g

Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;

h.

Attorneys’ fees and costs of this action, including expert witness fees, as
appropriate, and a gross up of any award as an allowance for taxing
consequences; and

i.

Any such further relief as the law or justice allows.

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.
Dated this 7th day of June 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
KING & GREISEN, LLP
s/Paula Greisen___
Paula Greisen
Meredith A. Munro
Laura E. Schwartz
1670 York St.
Denver, Colorado 80206
(303) 298-9878 telephone
(303) 298find9879 facsimile
greisen@kinggreisen.com
munro@kinggreisen.com
schwartz@kinggreisen.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Plaintiffs’ Addresses:
Sarah Prochaska, as Personal Representative of The Estate of Sarah Staebell
462 Sierra Trail
Coralville, IA 52241
Elizabeth A. Rendall
13334 W. Saratoga Drive
Morrison, CO 80465

25