Ruby Tyler, a member of the United Pentecostal Church, was employed by a school district as an interpreter and tutor for deaf students. In this capacity, she worked at an elementary school for one year and at a middle school for two years. During her interpreting, Tyler modified language she found objectionable or informed students that the speaker had used undesirable language. The school district developed new guidelines mandating that interpreters convey all information verbatim. In addition to word-for-word interpretation to hearing impaired students, the district assigned her to work at the high school. Tyler refused to work at the high school under the new guidelines and was terminated by the district. She sued, claiming discrimination.

1. Does Tyler have a valid claim of discrimination? Why or why not?
2. Was the district's action arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of Tyler's religious beliefs?
3. How would you assess Tyler's refusal to interpret personally objectionable material versus a deaf student's right to know what is communicated by speakers?
4. Is Tyler justified in her actions? Why or why not?
5. Is the district justified in its action? Why or why not?
6. How would the court likely rule in this case?
7. What are the administrative implications based on your assessment of this case?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

To answer this question I will address the key points raised 1 Does Tyler have a valid claim of discrimination No Tyler likely does not have a valid claim of discrimination The school districts requir... View the full answer