ANDREA TUMBLESON v. LAKOTA LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAKOTA LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION - Articles

All Content

ANDREA TUMBLESON v. LAKOTA LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT; LAKOTA LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION

Posted by: Azya Thornton on May 13, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Marc D. Mezibov, MARC D. MEZIBOV, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: John C. Albert, AMUNDSEN DAVIS, LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Judge(s): THAPAR, BUSH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Andrea Tumbleson suffers from a rare disease that has gradually caused her to lose her vision and hearing. Despite her disabilities, she has excelled as an art teacher in the Lakota Local School District. After teaching for many years, Tumbleson decided that she needed a guide dog to help her navigate the world. She sought to use paid sick leave to attend a mandatory three-week training course to obtain her guide dog. Lakota denied her request for paid leave because this training did not qualify as a “personal illness” under the district’s sick-leave policy. But it allowed her to take unpaid leave as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Tumbleson sued Lakota. She alleged that the denial of paid leave violated the ADA both because it amounted to disability discrimination and because it failed to properly accommodate her disability. And she suggested that she had the right to use paid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The district court granted summary judgment to Lakota. We agree with this result. Tumbleson’s disparate-treatment claim under the ADA fails because she lacks evidence that Lakota treated nondisabled personnel more favorably. And her failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA fails because unpaid leave qualified as a “reasonable” accommodation. Lastly, Tumbleson’s FMLA claim fails because this law entitled her to paid sick leave only if Lakota would “normally” provide that leave under the circumstances. And Tumbleson raises only a bare-bones challenge to the district court’s conclusion that her guide-dog training did not qualify for paid leave under Lakota’s sick-leave policy. We affirm.

Attachments: