top of page

Tyndall v. National Education Centers (1994)

By Matthew Chin


Overview


Mary M. Tyndall (Plaintiff) sued National Education Centers (NEC) for discharging her from her part-time teaching position at Kee Business College Campus (Kee) in Richmond, Virginia, citing that this violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), specifically 42 U.S.C. § 12101, which protects individuals being discharged because of their or their family member’s disability. In response, the defendants cited her inability to meet attendance requirements, despite the employer's accommodation of her disabilities did not make her qualify as an individual protected by the ADA under 42 U.S.C. § 12112. The court ruled in favor of the employer and granted them summary judgment.


Summary


Mary M. Tyndall has lupus erythematosus, an autoimmune disease [1] in which the immune system mistakenly attacks healthy tissue, causing multiple issues, the most debilitating being joint pain, inflammation, and fatigue [2]. Upon completing her career training program in medical assisting in January 1990, she was hired as a part-time instructor in the medical assisting program by Dale Seay, the head of Kee’s Allied Health Department, who was aware of her condition and made it known to other employees as well. Knowing her condition, Kee accommodated her in any way they could. From taking sick leave to arriving late and leaving early and taking breaks throughout the work day, where employees would help her to the break room. Tyndall even admits that Kee accommodated every one of her requests [1]. However, an issue arose in 1992, when Tyndall struggled to show up to work regularly, missing a total of 19 days between January and July. The reasons for her absence were helping a friend with legal papers (1 day), dealing with an illness due to her condition (10 days) and taking care of her son, who has gastro-esophageal reflux disease (8 days), all of which were approved by Kee [1]. Tyndall’s absence meant other teachers had to work overtime to cover her classes, causing a strain on current employees. Seay set a meeting with Tyndall and the current executive director at the time, Zoe Thompson, in August to discuss her prolonged absence. During the meeting, Tyndall brought up that she would need to take another leave of absence as her son was going into surgery in Birmingham. At that point, Seay and Thompson suggested that Tyndall resign and apply for Kee’s re-employment at a less busy time in her life. Seay wrote a report about the situation and concluded that it was a “mutual” separation, which Tyndall signed. She filed a claim later in August with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against NEC and Kee for violating her rights to equal employment under the ADA. In her claim she accused the NEC of 1) discriminating against her because of her association with her son’s condition, 2) failing to make reasonable accommodations for her disability prior to her termination, 3) discriminating against her based on her own disability in her termination, and 4) violating Virginians with Disabilities Act (VDA) on the same basis of failing to make reasonable accommodations for her disability and terminating her [1]. 


In the district court’s decision, on counts 1 and 3, they concluded that NEC terminated her for valid reasons and had nothing to do with her disability and granted summary judgment, or the process of resolving all issues of the case without a full trial. This only happens when the facts clearly and without dispute support one party’s argument. They dismissed count 2, finding no evidence of discrimination, since the NEC never refused Tyndall's accommodation request, as she herself attested. They also dismissed count 4, finding that the VDA doesn’t apply to the NEC. Tyndall appealed the case to the appeals court for review and they reaffirmed the district court’s decision.


In their reasoning, the appeals court highlighted three major issues with Tyndall’s case. The first is whether NEC discriminated against her when terminating her. Under the ADA, section 12112, “No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability…” [3]. There is no doubt that Tyndall has a disability, so the court is more focused on whether Tyndall was qualified for the position and whether there was unlawful discrimination present in her termination. They are looking to see whether Tyndall was able to perform the functions of her job with the necessary accommodations provided to her. While she demonstrated she could provide quality teaching when she was working, the court finds that, due to the nature of her profession, it is a job that must be performed in person, meaning regularly showing up to teach is a mandatory part of the job. Tyndall’s failure to show up regularly in spite of NEC’s accommodations for her and the fact that her absences were due to her taking care of her son, which NEC is not responsible for accommodating, showed that she could not effectively execute the functions of her job and her claim of violation of section 12112 under the ADA fails to hold water [1]. Therefore, under count 1, Kee’s decision to terminate her was based only on her past absences and was reasonable, as it was clear she needed time off to care for her son. The court found that there was no discrimination against Tyndall on the basis of her son’s condition. 


The second is about whether Tyndall’s disability was a motivating factor in Kee’s decision to terminate her. Looking at the events starting from when Tyndall was hired by Seay to her termination, there is no evidence that would suggest that Tyndall’s termination was because of her disability. It should be noted that Seay encouraged Tyndall to apply for the job with knowledge of her disability and provided more than reasonable accommodations for her to perform her job. Tyndall relies on three statements made by Seay and Thompson, which consist of 1) a warning of her multiplying absences, 2) Seay commenting that Tyndall “not sounding great,” asking if she is ok, and 3) Thompson’s comment that personal health and family seemed more important than her job. The court finds that these comments and statements were simply the employer checking in on their employee and while the ADA prohibits discrimination, it doesn’t prevent dialogue. 


Lastly, regarding the NEC's alleged violation of the VDA, because of the court’s ruling on her ADA violation claims, the claim that the NEC violated the VDA must also fail. On those reasons, the appeal court reaffirmed the district court’s decision to grant the defendant summary judgment on all 4 counts. 


Impact


The importance of this is that the ADA does protect individuals with disabilities, but it does not give them immunity from responsibility. The purpose of the accommodations is to allow the person with the disability to perform their job similarly to those without a disability. However, they are still responsible for performing at an adequate level or higher with the provided accommodations. While Tyndall performed exceptionally well when she was teaching, showing up is also a part of the job. Her absence strained the teachers, who had to work overtime to cover her class, forcing Seay to re-evaluate his team and look for someone who could show up regularly. The ADA helps create equal opportunities for those with disabilities to find jobs, but it still requires the individual with a disability to perform the functions of the job with the accommodations provided by the employer to keep their job. 


Court Documents



Sources


[2] “Systemic lupus erythematosus”, MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia, U.S. National Library of Medicine/NIH, accessed January 22, 2026, https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000435.htm. 



 
 
Donate
bottom of page