A recent lawsuit claims that a charter school failed to provide necessary accommodations for an employee with Type I Diabetes and then terminated her employment after she raised concerns about both her medical needs and alleged violations of federal special education law. The complaint was filed by Charity Ann-Marie Walker in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on March 16, 2026, naming DeKalb Brilliance Academy as the defendant.
According to the filing, Ms. Walker worked as a Special Education Teacher at DeKalb Brilliance Academy from January 29, 2024 through December 2, 2024. She alleges that beginning in June 2024 and continuing through December of that year, she repeatedly requested a reasonable accommodation for her disability—specifically an earlier lunch break before 2:00 PM due to medically documented risks associated with delayed meals. Her workday began at 7:45 AM with lunch scheduled only at 2:00 PM.
The complaint states that this schedule created daily health risks for Ms. Walker, including blood sugar crashes, nausea, dizziness, tremors, and on at least one occasion required emergency medical care. Medical documentation from her physician submitted to the school on July 31, 2024 indicated the necessity for flexibility in meal timing to manage her blood glucose levels. Despite these requests and supporting documents—including an ADA Medical Inquiry Form completed by Dr. Nelson Yuen—the school allegedly refused to adjust her schedule or provide sufficient breaks.
Ms. Walker reports being reprimanded by administration when she attempted to eat during times not designated as lunch or when she left class briefly during hypoglycemic episodes. On November 21, 2024 she was hospitalized following severe symptoms attributed to the lack of accommodation for her diabetes management needs. The day after providing another doctor’s note requiring lunch before 2:00 PM as a medical necessity (dated November 25), Ms. Walker was terminated from her position.
The complaint also describes how other teachers were allowed more flexible meal times and breaks without similar discipline or scrutiny. It further alleges that Ms. Walker faced stricter discipline than non-disabled colleagues who had not engaged in protected speech or requested accommodations.
In addition to discrimination based on disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Ms. Walker claims retaliation following her advocacy regarding special education practices at the school. She asserts that throughout her employment she observed violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), such as incomplete Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and improper placement procedures for students with disabilities.
Ms. Walker states that she raised these concerns internally with administration—including Head of School Jocelyn Alter—and externally by emailing the Georgia Department of Education on December 1, 2024 about IDEA violations at DeKalb Brilliance Academy. She was terminated on December 2, one day after this report was sent.
Supporting this claim of retaliation is evidence cited in the complaint showing that termination paperwork was backdated to November 18—the date Ms. Walker emailed about illegal IEP placement practices—despite her continued work until December; additionally, it is alleged that extra pay was offered contingent upon not speaking negatively about the school.
On February 13, 2026, according to court documents referenced by Ms. Walker’s filing, the Georgia Department of Education found DeKalb Brilliance Academy out of compliance with several IDEA requirements following review of Ms. Walker’s formal complaint.
The lawsuit also includes claims under Georgia common law for invasion of privacy based on alleged surveillance and monitoring practices by school administrators regarding employee conversations in break rooms and scrutiny over what Ms. Walker ate during work hours.
Ms. Walker further contends that inadequate healthcare benefits provided by DeKalb Brilliance Academy exacerbated her medical difficulties and contributed to workplace safety issues; meanwhile certain upper management employees allegedly received additional health insurance compensation options not available to most staff members.
In relief sought from the court, Ms. Walker demands a jury trial on all issues triable; injunctions restraining continued violation of ADA rights; compensation for lost wages and benefits; front pay in lieu of reinstatement; compensatory damages including emotional distress; punitive damages; prejudgment interest; costs and attorney’s fees; as well as any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The case is identified as Civil Action File No.: 1:26-cv-01443-TWT-JEM in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division. Plaintiff is represented by Elena Komsky of Cantrell Schuette P.A.
Source: 26cv01443_Charity_Ann-Marie_v_Dekalb_Brilliance_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
