University of Texas at Arlington v. Grace Esimai

University of Texas at Arlington v. Esimai · Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth · March 26, 2026 · No. 02-25-00569-CV

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals for the Second District considers whether a university professor who sought indefinite remote teaching as a disability accommodation was qualified for an in-person teaching position. The court holds that in-person instruction was an essential function of the position and that the professor failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding her qualification. It reverses the trial court's denial of the university's plea to the jurisdiction and motion for summary judgment and renders judgment for the university.

Holdings

  1. For the in-person teaching position at issue, physical attendance and in-person instruction were essential job functions because UTA had returned the relevant department to a fully in-person model, and remote teaching would fundamentally alter that position.
  2. Esimai failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that she was qualified for the in-person teaching position because she asserted that she could teach only remotely and presented no evidence that she could perform the essential function of in-person teaching with or without a reasonable accommodation.
  3. UTA was entitled to dismissal of Esimai's disability-discrimination claim because she failed to establish the qualification element of her prima facie case.
  4. UTA was entitled to dismissal of Esimai's failure-to-accommodate claim because she was not an otherwise qualified employee able to perform the essential functions of the in-person teaching position.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Esimai was qualified for her in-person teaching position when she stated that she could not resume teaching in person.
  2. Whether temporary permission to teach remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether in-person teaching was an essential function of her position.
  3. Whether UTA was entitled to dismissal of Esimai's disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims for lack of evidence that she could perform the essential functions of the position.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (29)

  • Tex. Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004)(followed)
  • State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009)(followed)
  • Ho v. University of Texas at Arlington, 984 S.W.2d 672 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. denied)(followed)
  • Courtney v. University of Texas System, 806 S.W.2d 277 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, writ denied)(followed)
  • Town of Shady Shores v. Swanson, 590 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. 2019)(followed)
  • Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012)(followed)
  • Alamo Heights Independent School District v. Catherine Clark, Alamo Heights Independent School District v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. 2018)(followed)
  • City of Austin v. Powell, 704 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. 2024)(followed)
  • Texas Department of Transportation v. Lara, 625 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. 2021)(followed)
  • Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 29.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…