FINK v. RICHMOND

Nos. 09-2216, 09-2269

AUSTINE R. FINK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES E. RICHMOND, in his individual and official capacity; CHARLES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; KEITH A. HETTEL, in his individual and official capacity as Assistant Superintendant for Human Resources, Defendants-Appellees. PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER; DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND; AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY; AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY CANCER ACTION NETWORK; MARYLAND DISABILITY LAW CENTER; LEGAL AID SOCIETY, EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER, Amici Supporting Appellant. AUSTINE R. FINK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES E. RICHMOND, in his individual and official capacity; CHARLES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; KEITH A. HETTEL, in his individual and official capacity as Assistant Superintendant for Human Resources, Defendants-Appellants. PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER; DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND; AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY; AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY CANCER ACTION NETWORK; MARYLAND DISABILITY LAW CENTER; LEGAL AID SOCIETY, EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER, Amici Supporting Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided: December 16, 2010.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

ARGUED: Robert Scott Oswald , THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Leslie Robert Stellman , HODES, PESSIN & KATZ, PA, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

ON BRIEF: David L. Scher , THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Amy Folsom Kett , HOGAN LOVELLS US, LLP, McLean, Virginia; Lisa Y. Settles , HODES, PESSIN & KATZ, PA, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Monisha Cherayil , PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Amici Supporting Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Austine Fink, an art teacher employed by the Board of Education of Charles County, Maryland (the Board), brought this action against the Board and two of the Board's school administrators (collectively, the defendants). Fink alleged that the defendants, in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), and Title I and Title II of the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases