HIGHLIGHTS OF ADA/SECTION 504 DECISIONS
As Applied To Institutions of Higher Education
© COPYRIGHT 2009
JEANNE M. KINCAID, ESQ.
Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon
40 Pleasant Street
Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03802
603/433-3317
jkincaid@dwmlaw.com
www.dwmlaw.com
I.
PRE-ADMISSION INQUIRIES

Conception Seminary College (MO), Case No. 07-99-2178, 18 NDLR ¶ 216 (OCR Region
VII (2000) (upholding college’s right in the very limited circumstances herein, to require
applicants seeking seminary enrollment in preparation for the priesthood to submit results of
psychological and physical examinations)

Arkansas Baptist College (AR), Case No. 06-99-2090, 19 NDLR ¶ 61 (OCR Region VI
1999) (neither the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA prohibits preadmission inquiries about an
applicant's illegal use of drugs or excessive use of alcohol)

Three Rivers Community College (MO), Case No. 07-99-2085, 19 NDLR ¶ 60 (OCR
Region VII 1999) (upholding use of form requesting health information for emergency
purposes since it was not part of the application process)

Loma Linda University (CA), Case No. 09-97-2012, 11 NDLR ¶ 367 (OCR Region IX
1997) (committee impermissibly discussed applicant’s hearing impairment during interview;
permissible only when applicant initiates discussion)

Ohio State Schools of Cosmetology and T.H.E. Barber School, Case No. 05-94-2158, 7
NDLR ¶ 95 (OCR Region V 1995) (upholding post-admission use of medical questionnaire
to ensure safety working with public; but application contained impermissible inquiries
pertaining to applicant’s conditions affecting ability to graduate or employability)

University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Case No. 04-94-2143 (OCR Region IV 1995)
(upholding applicant’s rejection for failing to provide psychiatric documentation of
disability-related criminal misconduct)

West Georgia College, Case No. 04-94-2192 (OCR Region IV 1995) (nursing program
unlawfully required completion of pre-admission health form)

The Medical College of Pennsylvania, Case No. 03-92-2014 (OCR Region III 1994)
(upholding consideration of nonstandard admissions tests; no evidence college used
information unlawfully)
II.
ADMISSION

Hartnett v. Fielding Graduate Institute, 33 NDLR 130 (2nd Cir. 2006) (unpublished
opinion) (Court remands case to lower court to determine whether request to defer admission
for one year based on treatment for Lupus was reasonable)

Betts v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, (Betts I) 191 F.3d 447 (4th Cir.
1999) (opinion unpublished) (student diagnosed with learning disability considered otherwise
qualified: student met essential eligibility requirements when afforded double time on exams;
school required to disregard poor performance during first term when not accommodated)
-1-

Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Case Western Reserve University, 666 N.E.2d 1376, 8
NDLR ¶ 245 (Ohio 1996) (upholding medical school’s denial of admission to blind
applicant; accommodations needed would result in lowering school’s criteria and require
fundamental alteration of program)

Michigan State University, Case No. 15-04-2046, 31 NDLR ¶ 25 (OCR 2005) (university
decision denying admission to an individual diagnosed with autism did not violate
Rehabilitation Act/ADA, despite university’s knowledge of student’s condition; decision was
justified by applicant’s failure to meet minimum GPA requirements for transfer students)

University of Texas Medical Branch, 105 LRP 12153, Case No. 06-04-2067, (OCR Region
VI 2005) (candidate failed to establish that she was otherwise qualified to attend medical
school due to the physical impairments associated with the condition of dystonia which
prevented her from meeting the school’s technical standards; medical school justified in
withdrawing conditional offer following careful assessment and consideration of
accommodation requests)

St. Petersburg Junior College (FL), Case No. 04-00-2170 (OCR Region IV 2000)
(upholding nursing program's withdrawal of letter of acceptance to student with impaired
motor functioning affecting hand, fingers and wrist, based on her inability to meet essential
technical standards as measured by skills test)

St. Thomas University (FL), Case No. 04-99-2119, 18 NDLR ¶ 245 (OCR Region IV 1999)
(law school has no obligation to waive requirement that all applicants take the LSAT; basing
admission decision on applicant's previous educational and occupation history is not
standardized nor measurable)

Commonwealth Business College (IN), Case No. 05-98-2032 (OCR Region V 1998)
(college agreed not to use admission tests unless validated and given all applicants to resolve
complaint that it denied admission to applicant with amputated hand who applied for
admission to accounting/computer systems program)

University of Memphis (TN), Case No. 04-98-2021, 14 NDLR ¶ 34 (OCR Region IV 1998)
(upholding university’s decision denying admission to candidate whose GRE score fell
below minimum requirement; all other accepted applicants had higher scores)

Middle Tennessee State University, Case No. 04-96-2170, 10 NDLR ¶ 383 (OCR Region
IV 1997) (upholding math and foreign language admission requirements)
III.

NOTICE OF DISABILITY
Burns v. Slippery Rock University of Pa., 107 LRP 45811 (W.D. Penn. 2007) (dismissing
claim against public school field placement by former student with hearing impairment for
failing to allege that she had requested reasonable accommodation)
-2-

Steere v. George Washington University Sch. of Medicine and Health Sciences, 439
F.Supp.2d 17 (D.D.C 2006) (university is obligated to consider whether student is disabled
and could be reasonably accommodated if it receives notice prior to official dismissal),
vacated as moot, 35 NDLR 254 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (opinion unpublished)

Hanlon v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, No. 03-2119, 27
NDLR 274 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004) (opinion unpublished) (university did not discriminate
against student since it did not know or have reason to know of her asthmatic condition and
need for accommodation until her second dismissal)

Rosenthal v. Webster University, 230 F.3d 1363, 102 LRP 33039 (8th Cir. 2000)
(university's suspension of student with bipolar disorder did not violate § 504/ADA as
university had no knowledge he was disabled at time of action)

Kaltenberger v. Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine, 162 F. 3d 432, 14 NDLR ¶ 71 (6th
Cir. 1998) (student’s statement to academic advisor that she believed she may have ADHD
triggered no ADA obligation by the college)

Brown v. University of Cincinnati, No. C-1-04-164, 105 LRP 23835 (S.D. Ohio, June 3,
2005) (medical student failed to provide timely notice of disability when he only provided
diagnosis and recommendations for accommodation after Promotions Board’s
recommendation to dismiss but prior to Appeals Board decision)

Satir v. University of New England, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2341 (D.Maine 2005) (medical
school cannot be found to have failed to accommodate former student’s alleged depression
when she failed to notify the school of her condition)

Stearns v. Board of Educ. for Warren Tp. High School Dist. #121, WL 1044832, (NO. 99
C 5818) (N.D.Ill. 1999) (school district could not have discriminated against student on basis
of disability when neither it nor student knew he was alcoholic)

Smith v. University of the State of N.Y., 1997 WL 800882, 11 NDLR ¶ 234 (W.D.N.Y.
1997) (student’s notice to academic dean late in the semester that he has clinical depression
was sufficient notice to trigger right to accommodation of incomplete; student’s failure to
register with disability services office no bar to relief)

Lourdes College (OH), 29 NDLR ¶ 25 (OCR Region XV 2004) (college which dismissed
student from nursing program did not violate the Rehabilitation Act as it lacked any notice of
disability prior to its decision to dismiss student who failed two clinical courses which
justified dismissal under college’s program standards)

Northwestern University (IL), 104 LRP 6357, Case No. 05-03-2134 (OCR Region V 2003)
(student failed to establish that university had knowledge that he may have been disabled by
gun-shot wound)
-3-

Suffolk University (MA), Case No. 01-01-2042, 22 NDLR ¶ 238 (OCR Region I 2001)
(failure of student with ADHD to notify university of his panic/anxiety disorder barred from
claiming discrimination on basis of latter condition)

Lewis-Clark State College (ID), Case No. 10-01-2039, 22 NDLR ¶ 185 (OCR Region X
2001) (dismissing claim of student with mental impairments that university failed to properly
accommodate him when university had no knowledge of his disability)

College of Saint Rose (NY), Case No. 02-00-2055, 22 NDLR ¶ 64 (OCR Region II 2001)
(student’s claims of unlawful dismissal and retaliation dismissed based on failure to produce
evidence establishing that college was aware of his disability [post traumatic stress, obsessive
compulsive disorder and information processing disorder]; student failed to register with
disability services office as established in college informational procedures)

Texas Woman's University (TX), Case No. 06-00-2038, 19 NDLR ¶ 129 (OCR Region VI
2000) (even though student's materials mentioned that she had a learning disability, failure to
request accommodations absolved university from liability)

Western Michigan University (MI), Case No. 15-99-2016, 18 NDLR ¶ 244 (OCR Region
XV 2000) (student's right to ADA protection only arose when she provided university with
sufficient documentation of a learning disability and requested accommodation)

Montgomery College (MD), Case No. 03-99-2059, 19 NDLR ¶ 90 (OCR Region III 1999)
(ADA is not retroactive; college not in violation when student only requested
accommodations after failing course)

Temple University (PA), Case No. 03-99-2049, 19 NDLR ¶ 32 (OCR Region III 1999)
(university provided adequate notice of its disability policies through its student orientations,
undergraduate and graduate bulletins, application and student handbook)

University of Maryland, Case No. 03-99-2031, 17 NDLR ¶ 29 (OCR Region III 1999)
(three week delay between receiving student’s documentation and university’s request for
additional clarification from evaluator was not unreasonable; university agreed to provide
accommodations within one week of receiving complete evaluation)

The New School for Social Research (NY), Case No. 02-97-241 (OCR Region II 1998)
(student’s indication to advisor that he had suffered two car accidents was insufficient notice
that he was seeking Section 504 accommodations)

University of California at San Diego, Case No. 09-97-2007, 10 NDLR ¶ 304 (OCR
Region IX 1997) (university had no obligation to notify student of disability-related services
when academic performance began to suffer)
-4-

California School of Professional Psychology, Case No. 09-96-2102, 10 NDLR ¶ 238
(OCR Region IX 1996) (fact that student mentioned disorder in application was insufficient
notice to college of potential disabling condition)
IV.
DOCUMENTATION

Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 122 S.Ct. 681 (2002) (documenting nature and severity of
disorder may be necessary in order to determine whether particular condition(s) rises to level
of being disabling for ADA purposes)

Vinson v. Thomas, 23 NDLR ¶ 135 (9th Cir. 2002) (remanding case to determine if Division
of Vocational Rehabilitation discriminated against claimant by requiring diagnosis of
learning disability despite evidence of history of disability-related needs, including
documentation from disability services provider; standard: documentation to satisfy a
“reasonable expert in the field”)

Shaboon v. Duncan, 252 F.3d 722 (5th Cir. 2001) (upholding right of medical school to
require student with bipolar disorder who was unable to effectively care for patients to
review student's medical file to determine if she was otherwise qualified)

Kaltenberger v. Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine, 162 F. 3d 432, 14 NDLR ¶ 71 (6th
Cir. 1998) (physician’s note diagnosing student as having ADHD insufficient; independent
evaluation justified when conflict in documentation; no duty to accommodate absent
authoritative diagnosis)

LaMarca v. Capella University, No. 05-00642 (C.D. Calif. 2007) (court rejects former
student’s assertion that the university was barred from requiring him to produce
documentation of his alleged disability)

Abdo v. University of Vermont, No. 02-12, 103 LRP 24006 (D.Vt. 2003) (university
practice that required student to obtain formal diagnosis in order to receive accommodations
was unnecessarily burdensome; student provided sufficient medical evidence of physical
impairment and effect on functional limitations; however, university’s failure to have single,
centralized approach to seeking accommodation did not have effect of screening out
otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities in violation of ADA)

Colombini v. Members of Bd. of Directors of Empire College School of Law, 2001 WL
1006785 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (dismissing discrimination claim for failure to produce evidence
of disability; vague letters from psychiatrist insufficient)
-5-

Guckenberger v. Trustees of Boston University, 8 F.Supp.2d 82, 13 NDLR ¶ 59 (D. Mass.
1998) (institution may not impose unnecessary, unduly burdensome documentation
requirements [here - cannot require retesting of adult students diagnosed as having learning
disabilities, but may do so for students with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), based upon
latter’s changing nature; masters level evaluators may be competent to assess learning
disabilities, but university may require professionals with doctoral degrees or medical
physicians to diagnose ADD)

Dubois v. Alderson-Broaddus College, Inc., 950 F. Supp. 754, 9 NDLR ¶ 151 (N.D. W.Va.
1997) (college justified in denying accommodations to student who failed to supply
assessment results of specific test required by college; student did not challenge requirements
as unduly burdensome)

Central New Mexico Community College, Case No. 08-07-2035, 37 NDLR 186 (OCR
Region VIII 2007) (OCR found that college’s documentation criteria discriminatory; college
agreed to (1) not impose unduly burdensome documentation requirements; (2) request the
minimum amount of information necessary to establish a disability and/or support a
requested accommodation; and (3) adopt clear standards so that students are aware)

Fayatteville Technical Community College (NC), 31 NDLR 26, Case No. 11-05-2007
(OCR 2005) (college engaged in good faith interactive process to determine if its policy that
dental hygienist students serve as patients to fellow students should be waived for diabetic
student whose documentation was insufficient)

Notre Dame University, Case No. 05-04-2079, 30 NDLR 102 (OCR Region V 2005)
(university justified in refusing to provide accommodations until student provided sufficient
documentation; therapist’s note received two days before end of classes that she was treating
student for anxiety and he should receive extended time in quiet area held insufficient)

Allegheny College (PA), 30 NDLR 52, Case No. 03-04-2080 (OCR Region V 2004)
(college did not violate the Rehabilitation Act by refusing to provide accommodations when
student failed to provide required documentation (ADHD diagnosis insufficient); college
provided multiple sources of information including web and parent handbook; helping
ineligible student does not render him legally disabled)

Spencerian College (KY), 30 NDLR 51, Case No. 03-04-2058 (OCR Region III 2004)
(student’s failure to produce documentation of recommended accommodations for her
ADHD doomed her claim that the college violated the ADA/Rehabilitation Act by failing to
provide her with untimed tests, notetakers, study guides and taped lectures)

Western Nebraska Community College (NE), Case No. 07-99-2027 (OCR Region VII
2000) (resolution agreement – if college disputes existence of disability or necessity of
course substitution it may conduct own assessment at its cost)

Community College of Southern Nevada, Case No. 10-00-2033, 20 NDLR 60 (OCR 2000)
(upholding requirements that assessment information be documented on letterhead and that
-6-
student authorize disability services office to communicate with evaluator as condition of
receipt of accommodations)

University of Wisconsin - Madison, Case No. 05-00-2033 (OCR Region V 2000)
(university under no obligation to provide electronic remote access to its libraries for nonstudent on basis of severe allergies without proper documentation to establish ADA/504
coverage and necessity of accommodation)

Temple University (PA), Case No. 03-99-2049, 19 NDLR ¶ 32 (OCR Region III 1999)
(university is entitled to seek documentation from qualified professionals to establish
diagnosis, functional limitations, ability to benefit and need for accommodation; it may also
seek a second opinion at its own expense)

Montgomery College (MD), Case No. 03-99-2059, 19 NDLR ¶ 90 (OCR Region III 1999)
(college has generally no duty to accommodate until receipt of sufficient documentation
establishing disability and nature of accommodations warranted)

Chapman University (CA), Case No. 09-95-2077, 16 NDLR ¶ 200 (OCR Region IX 1999)
(rejecting claim of student that university illegally refused to alter test format when not
supported by documentation)

College of DuPage, Case No. 05-98-2033 (OCR Region V 1998) (indicating that
postsecondary institution has right on its own to obtain professional determination of whether
requested auxiliary aids are necessary and/or appropriate)

University of Massachusetts, Case No. 01-97-2095, 12 NDLR ¶ 315 (OCR Region I 1998)
(upholding university requirement that student claiming to have ADD provide documentation
of her current level of cognitive functioning, criteria that formed basis of diagnosis and
recommended accommodations; diagnosis alone insufficient)

Briarcliffe College (NY), Case No. 02-96-2119 (OCR Region II 1997) (upholding cessation
of accommodations based on student’s refusal to allow college to copy evaluations;
reviewing them insufficient)

Virginia Commonwealth University, Case No. 03-94-2099 (OCR Region III 1995)
(university may require documentation to establish disability at student expense)

Western State University College of Law (CA), Case No. 09-95-2065-I (OCR Region IX
1995) (five year old chiropractic report insufficient to establish current disability)

University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Case No. 04-94-2143 (OCR Region IV 1995)
(upholding requirement of second opinion at university expense for criminal conduct
allegedly caused by psychiatric condition)
-7-

University of Wisconsin - Madison, Case No. 05-95-2004 (OCR Region V 1995)
(upholding demand for second opinion at university expense in light of options to
accommodate medical condition)
V.
DISABILITY DEFINED1

Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 122 S.Ct. 681 (2002) (major life activities are those
activities of central importance to most people’s daily lives; temporary impairments do not
enjoy ADA protection)

Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 119 S.Ct. 2139 (1999) (establishing ADA disability requires
consideration of mitigating measures, here corrective lenses)

Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 119 S.Ct. 2162 (1999) (measures undertaken with
artificial aids, like medications and devices, and measures undertaken, whether consciously
or not, with the body's own systems must be considered when determining if a condition
substantially limits a major life activity)

Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) (list of major life activities contained in regulations
is not exhaustive; HIV infection may substantially limit reproduction)

Tylicki v. St. Onge, 297 Fed. Appx 65, 38 NDLR 50 (2d Cir. 2008) (unpublished opinion)
(upholding dismissal of complaint which failed to allege how former student’s mental
impairment substantially limited a major life activity)

Singh v. George Washington University, 36 NDLR 1 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (in determining
whether student’s learning disability substantially limited her ability to learn, the comparison
group is the average person in the general population, not the average medical student; testtaking is not a major life activity)

Marlon v. Western New England College, 29 NDLR 139, 2005 WL 43997 (1st Cir. Jan. 11,
2005) (unpublished opinion) affirming No. 01-12199-DPW, 27 NDLR 70 (D.Mass. 2003)
(former student failed to establish her impairments substantially limited her learning or
working; merely establishing that law school provided accommodations for her condition
does not create a triable issue; plaintiff failed to showed that school entertained any
“misperceptions” about her condition, a necessary predicate to obtaining relief under the
“regarded as” prong of the ADA/Rehabilitation Act)

Wong v. Regents of the University of California, 379 F.3d 1097, 28 NDLR 270 (9th Cir.
2004) (Wong II) (medical student who achieved academic success without accommodation
failed to prove that his learning impairment substantially limited his ability to read, learn and
work; student would have had to demonstrate that his reading and learning limitations
1
All of the cases cited herein predate passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008. The
reader should use caution in relying on some of the holdings of these cases.
-8-
rendered him unable to perform daily functions such as reading newspapers, government
forms and street signs)

Rothberg v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., 28 NDLR 129 (10th Cir. 2004)
(unpublished opinion) (reversing issuance of preliminary injunction which had ordered
council to grant student time and a half on LSAT based on a learning disability; testee failed
to demonstrate irreparable harm and Council’s claim would be moot if injunction granted)

Carten v. Kent State University, 78 Fed. Appx. 499, 27 NDLR ¶ 8 (6th Cir. 2003)
(unpublished opinion) (student failed to establish that he had a learning disability; no
diagnosis and no history of using accommodations in undergraduate program, despite
receiving therapies in high school)

Dicks v. Thomas Moore College, 73 Fed. Appx. 149, 26 NDLR ¶ 224 (6th Cir. 2003)
(unpublished opinion) (dismissing claim brought by student who alleged that college’s
refusal to provide her with tutor for Algebra failed to prove that her “weak skills in visual
attention” substantially limited her ability to perform a central function in her life)

Swanson v. University of Cincinnati, 2001 WL 1104239 (6th Cir. 2001) (medical resident
diagnosed with depression failed to establish that condition substantially interfered with his
ability to concentrate, communicate or sleep in comparison to average person; medication
offset symptoms)

Betts v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, (Betts II) 2001 WL 1023115
(4th Cir. 2001) (unpublished opinion) (medical student despite learning disability, is not
significantly restricted in ability to learn in comparison with average person; university
regarded student as disabled by accommodating him based on misperception of disability)

Davis v. University of North Carolina, 263 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 2001) (dismissing claim of
student diagnosed with multiple personality disorder terminated from teaching program; at
most she could establish that university regarded her as unable to teach children
unsupervised, which does not substantially limit her ability to work; nor is she substantially
limited in her ability to attend college)

Dixon v. Regents of University of New Mexico, 242 F.3d 388 (10th Cir. 2000) (unpublished
opinion) (upholding medical school's dismissal of student who failed to allege what major
life activity her depression substantially limited)

Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, 226 F.3d 69 (2nd Cir. 2000), aff'd
2001 WL 930792 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (bar examiners unlawfully denied accommodations to
candidate diagnosed with learning disability based on faulty determination of who is and who
is not disabled; candidate demonstrated substantial limitation in ability to read, due to reading
rate, in comparison to average person)

Gonzales v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 225 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2000) (denying
ADA protection to medical student whose scores on comprehensive evaluations diagnosing
-9-
him as having a learning disability did not establish an impairment that substantially limits
his reading or writing skills when compared to average person; superlative academic
achievement without accommodation until third year of college and average scores on SAT
and MCAT without accommodation undercuts claim of "substantial limitation")

Betts v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, (Betts I) 191 F.3d 447 (4th Cir.
1999) (opinion unpublished) (attending medical school is not a major life activity)

Amir v. Saint Louis University, 184 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 1999) (eating, drinking and learning
are major life activities, interacting with others may not be; medical student with obsessive
compulsive disorder whose condition causes excessive vomiting is disabled for ADA
purposes)

McGuinness v. University of New Mexico School of Medicine, 162 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir.
1998) (opinion unpublished) (anxiety disorder manifesting itself in only two subjects, not
substantially limiting; medical school not a major life activity; student had duty to self
accommodate)

Knapp v. Northwestern University, 101 F.3d 473, 9 NDLR ¶ 32 (7th Cir. 1996), cert.
denied, 65 U.S.L.W. 3822 (1997) (although athletic competition may fall within major life
activity of learning, if university can demonstrate that student can learn without such
participation, it may deny same on basis of disability)

Love v. Law Sch. Admission Council, Inc., 513 F.Supp.2d 206, 34 NDLR 120 (E.D. Pa.
2007) (court rejects candidate’s claim of ADHD; accepts that his newly diagnosed learning
disability affects his reading and processing speed but not substantially; candidate had long
history of success with few “informal” accommodations; candidate received no formal
accommodations in undergraduate and MBA programs; candidate’s scores on SATs, ACTs
and LSATs were average without accommodation)

LaMarca v. Capella University, No. 05-00642 (C.D. Ca. 2007) (former student who
claimed that university failed to reasonably accommodate his ADD and learning disability
failed to demonstrate that his conditions substantially limited a major life activity; compared
with most people he performs solidly in the average range)

Morgan v. Nova Southeastern University, Inc., 35 NDLR 134 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (dismissing
former medical student’s complaint alleging that the university failed to reasonably
accommodate her epilepsy and autoimmune-mediated meningoencephalitis for failing to
allege that she is substantially limited in major life activities despite taking medication)

Kazerooni v. Vanderbilt University, 107 LRP 46782 (M.D. Tenn. 2007) (dismissing
former student’s complaint for failing to allege facts sufficient to establish that his carpal
tunnel syndrome substantially limited a major life activity; university did not regard student
as having a disability merely by being aware of his medical condition and making
adjustments to his computer and work area)
-10-

Burns v. Slippery Rock University of Pa., 107 LRP 45811 (W.D. Penn. 2007) (concluding
that public school which offered student teaching field experiences is subject to the
Rehabilitation Act and the ADA as an employer; former student could not establish her
hearing impairment substantially limited her ability to hear and speak; student never
registered for university accommodations; however, university may have regarded her as
disabled)

Dalton v. Roane State Community College, 33 NDLR 41 (E.D. Tenn. 2006) (court refuses
to set aside jury verdict finding that former nursing student’s learning disability did not
substantially limit her ability to learn, even though college had accommodated her; no
previous history of accommodation despite satisfactory performance at previous college and
on preadmission exam)

Emerson v. North Idaho College, 106 LRP 66423 (D. Idaho 2006) (former student’s claim
that nursing program discriminated against her based on her hearing loss fails as student did
not have her hearing evaluated as recommended, explain why such loss was not subject to
mitigation and did not consult with disability services until after her dismissal)

Olojo v. Kennedy-King College, 106 LRP 38815 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (pregnancy is not a
disability under the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA)

Costello v. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 33 NDLR 240 (D.N.C. 2006)
(student’s discrimination claim fails because his obsessive compulsive disorder did not
substantially limit his school work, golf game, personal relationships or showering; golfing is
not a major life activity; therapy and medication improved condition; nor did the university
regard the student as disabled by convening department meetings to discuss how to address
student’s condition)

Millington v. Temple University School of Dentistry, 33 NDLR 167 (E.D. Penn. 2006),
aff’d 2008 WL 185792 (3d Cir. Jan. 23, 2008) (unpublished opinion) (former student failed
to substantiate that her long list of alleged impairments either prevented or severely restricted
her from performing activities of central importance to most people’s daily lives; handling a
drill and participating in dental classes and clinics are not major life activities)

Selandia v. Regents of the University of California, 106 LRP 16247, 20072 (E.D. CA
2006) (student’s physical impairments may have substantially limited her ability to sit, stand
and/or walk)

Brown v. University of Cincinnati, No. C-1-04-164, 105 LRP 23835 (S.D. Ohio, June 3,
2005) (former student whose academic history was stellar until medical school failed to
establish that his reading disorder and generalized anxiety disorder substantially limited his
ability to learn in comparison with most people in the general population)

Baer v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 30 NDLR 89 (D.Mass. 2005) (rejecting
candidate’s request for injunctive relief concluding that medical student diagnosed with
-11-
dyslexia and ADHD was not substantially limited in her ability to read or learn; taking timed
tests is not a major life activity)

Dixson v. University of Cincinnati, 31 NDLR 123 (S.D. Ohio 2005) (former graduate
student was unable to establish that her diagnoses of bi-polar disorder, ADHD and learning
disability substantially limited her ability to learn in light of her substantial academic success
(undergraduate and masters degrees))

Turner v. Association of Medical Colleges, 105 LRP 20411 (Ca. Sup. Ct. 2005) (Testing
board must accommodate candidates who are considered disabled under California law, even
if not required to do so under the ADA; Board may flag such tests)

Steere v. George Washington University, 439 F.Supp.2d 17 (D.D.C 2006) (former medical
student could not establish that he suffers from ADHD or that the condition substantially
limited his ability to learn), vacated as moot, 35 NDLR 254 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (opinion
unpublished)

Witbeck v. Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc., 27 NDLR ¶ 135, 219 F.R.D. 540
(M.D.FL 2004) (dismissing claim of former student who alleged he had a central auditory
processing disorder; university’s expert witness asserted that student’s scores were in average
range)

Rush IV v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 268 F.Supp.2d 673 (N.D. Tex. 2003)
(granting preliminary injunction ordering Board to grant medical student double time on
board exam based on learning disability that substantially limited his ability to read and
learn; student had history of formal and informal accommodations)

Spychalsky v. Sullivan, 103 LRP 40719 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (student who graduated from
prestigious undergraduate university and attended highly regarded law school did not
establish that his math and spelling deficits substantially limited his ability to learn, read or
speak compared with most people)

Kenny v. Loyola University, 2003 WL 503119 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (student claiming to have
fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, morbid obesity, hypertension, hearing and visual impairments,
edema, carpal tunnel syndrome and mobility challenges who used a service animal is entitled
to move forward on claim that she is disabled)

Fedorov v. The Board of Regents for the University of Georgia, 194 F. Supp.2d 1378, 23
NDLR ¶ 62 (S.D. Ga. 2002) (student considered “current” drug user and disqualified from
ADA/Rehabilitation Act coverage when dental school’s dismissed him from program within
two months of discovering such usage; nor did school regard him as disabled)

Betts v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 198 F.Supp.2d 787 (W.D. Va.
2002) (although medical school regarded student diagnosed with a learning disability as
disabled, it did not take any adverse action against him based on such misperception)
-12-

el Kouni v. Trustees of Boston University, 169 F. Supp. 1 (D. Mass. 2001) (student
diagnosed with clinical anxiety and depression and later bipolar disorder, which slowed his
thought processing and caused "cognitive blunting" is disabled under the ADA and
Rehabilitation Act)

Garcia v. State University of New York Health Sciences Center at Brooklyn, 2000 WL
1469551, 19 NDLR ¶ 57 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) aff’d on other grounds, 280 F.3d 98, 22 NDLR ¶
30 (2d Cir. 2001) (Court may not presume that student diagnosed with ADD who takes
Ritalin is not disabled; individualized inquiry regarding impact of medication required)

Green v. Graduate Theological Union, 2000 WL 1639514 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (dismissing
claim of former student on basis that "experience of depression" was temporary and episodic
as opposed to permanent or long-term; not disabled)

Pacella v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Dental Medicine, 66 F.Supp. 2d 234, 16 NDLR ¶ 189 (D.
Mass. 1999) (student diagnosed with amblyopia of the left eye and severe myopia of the right
eye whose conditions were largely ameliorated with use of contact lenses, diopter glasses and
other strategies is not disabled under the ADA; if student’s conditions do not substantially
limit his ability to learn, the fact that he cannot succeed in his chosen career is not a
substantial limitation of a major life activity)

Tatum v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 992 F.Supp. 1114, 12 NDLR ¶ 39 (E.D. Mo.
1998) (student diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder failed to establish that
impairment substantially limited ability to learn)

Price v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 966 F.Supp. 419, 10 NDLR ¶ 76 (S.D. W.Va.
1997) (dismissing claims for accommodation on basis that candidates were not disabled
when compared to average person despite existence of ADD and learning disabilities)

Lee v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, 958 F.Supp. 37 (D.N.H. 1997) (residency student
dismissed from program may proceed on claim that medical school wrongfully perceived
him as having multiple sclerosis that would prevent him from completing his residency with
or without reasonable accommodation)

Darian v. University of Massachusetts Boston, 980 F.Supp. 77 (D.Mass. 1997) (nursing
student who experienced serious complications associated with her pregnancy was
considered disabled for ADA purposes) [editor's note - decision is questionable given
Supreme Court’s Toyota decision]

Tips v. Regents of Texas Tech University, 8 NDLR ¶ 48 (N.D. Tex. 1996) (inability to
conceptually organize material not disabling under ADA/504)
-13-

Linson v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, No. 95-3681, 8 NDLR ¶ 299 (E.D.
Pa. 1996) (although university considered former student’s behavior “bizarre” and
“disturbing” recommending that he seek psychological counseling, it never considered him to
have impairment which substantially limited major life activity)

Pahulu v. University of Kansas, 897 F. Supp. 1387 (D. Kan. 1995) (playing football may
fall within major life activity of learning; but university provided many other ways of
learning, justifying denial of participation based on disability)

Saint Vincent's College of Nursing (CT), 19 NDLR ¶ 130, Case No. 01-00-2021 (OCR
Region I 2000) (student's test anxiety does not rise to the level of being disabling under the
ADA; achievement and intelligence test results were within average range)

Valparaiso University (IN), Case No. 05-99-2247 (OCR Region V 2000) (student’s
difficulty in sleeping regularly did not rise to level of being disabling under Section
504/ADA however, Section 504 applies to temporary impairments, here sprained ankle
limiting running and walking for three months) [editor's note - decision is clearly wrong on
latter point]

Germanna Community College (VA), Case No. 11-99-2166 (OCR Region XI 1999) (even
if student's diagnosed "visual-motor integration" impairment constitutes a disability, evidence
does not connect any math learning weakness with this or any other disability)

Birmingham Southern College (AL), 15 NDLR ¶ 158 (OCR Region IV 1998) (student with
history of bipolar disorder and hospitalization but who has no present symptoms and takes no
medication is not disabled for ADA/504 purposes)

University of Colorado - Health Sciences Center, Case No. 08-94-2090 (OCR Region VIII
1995) (student diagnosed with vertigo and major depression not disabled for purposes of
ADA as conditions were not substantially limiting; student only limited in performing
specialized activities)
VI.
OTHERWISE QUALIFIED

Powell v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 364 F.3d 79, 28 NDLR ¶ 3 (2nd Cir. 2004)
(former medical student failed to demonstrate that she was otherwise qualified to continue in
program; academic history and IQ testing suggested that she lacked ability to meet school
requirements)

Falcone v. University of Minnesota, 388 F.3d 656, 29 NDLR ¶ 96 (8th Cir. 2004)
(upholding medical school’s dismissal of student with learning disabilities who was unable to
succeed despite provision of reasonable accommodations; faculty enjoy “virtually
unrestricted discretion to evaluate academic performance” which includes clinical
performance)
-14-

Stopka v. Medical University of South Carolina, 35 NDLR 67 (S.C. 2007) (upholding
dismissal of medical resident as not otherwise qualified; medical school more than
reasonably accommodated resident by decreasing patient load, permitting him to take longer
and providing him with more supervision; resident lacked the requisite skills to care for
patients; handheld scanner would not have been effective in reading other residents’ notes)

Millington v. Temple University School of Dentistry, 33 NDLR 167 (E.D. Penn. 2006),
aff’d 2008 WL 185792 (3d Cir. Jan. 23, 2008) (unpublished opinion) (student failed to
demonstrate disability discrimination; dental school had ample evidence to show that student
was unqualified to continue in dental school; courts must defer to reasonable academic
decision-making)

el Kouni v. Trustees of Boston University, 169 F. Supp. 1 (D. Mass. 2001) (university
justified in dismissing student with mental impairments for failing to meet academic and
behavioral standards of MD/Ph.D program, despite provision of reasonable accommodation)

Fedorov v. Board of Regents for the Univ. of Ga., 194 F. Supp.2d 1378, 23 NDLR ¶ 62
(S.D. Ga. 2002) (upholding dental school’s dismissal of student with drug addiction despite
his admission into rehabilitation program; even though dismissal occurred after entry, drug
use was recent enough to pose an “ongoing threat”)

Johnson v. State Technology Ctr. at Memphis, 13 NDLR ¶ 256 (W.D. Tenn. 1998)
(student with quadriplegia permitted to proceed on claim that vocational college failed to
provide him with a retrofitted truck; federal regulatory restrictions permit a waiver to
physical requirements in some cases)

Maczaczyj v. New York, 956 F.Supp. 403, 11 NDLR ¶ 59 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) (concluding
that student who could not participate in masters program residency requirement due to
severe panic disorder was not otherwise qualified; participation by phone constituted
fundamental alteration of program)

Baker College of Flint, Case No. 15-06-2074, 107 LRP 28426 (OCR 2006) (upholding vet
technician program’s determination that student’s visual and hearing impairments could not
be reasonably accommodated without lowering essential technical standards; student placed
herself, other students and animals in danger)

Appalachian State University, Case No. 11-05-2085, 34 NDLR 176 (OCR DC Office
2006) (OCR faults music therapy program for adopting pitch ability as a technical standard
solely based on accrediting agency’s competencies; program must convene team of
knowledgeable, trained and experienced individuals to consider alternatives and make a
careful, thoughtful and rational decision)

Bevill State (AL) Community College, Case No. 04-06-2070, 106 LRP 56738 (OCR
Region IV 2006) (OCR upholds nursing program requirement that students be alcohol and
drug-free as condition of participation in clinical program; student claimed he required
Oxycontin for back pain)
-15-

Regent University (NC), Case No. 11-03-2022, 27 NDLR ¶ 63 (OCR Region XI 2003)
(university permitted to impose reasonable standards of conduct and deny readmission to
student whose conduct endangers his or others’ health and safety or is so inappropriate that it
interferes with others’ opportunity to participate)

University of Cincinnati, Case No. 15-00-2042 (OCR 2000) (upholding requirement that
student have foreign language skills prior to admission; music theory and history not
considered reasonable alternative)

Bowling Green University (OH), Case No. 05-98-2143 (OCR Region V 1999)
(postsecondary institutions encouraged to review essential program standards and, on
individual basis, determine whether any may be accommodated for students with range of
disorders; lowering of standards is not required by 504/ADA)
VII.
A.
ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENTS
Proving Failure To Accommodate

Mershon v. St. Louis University, 442 F.3d 1069, 32 NDLR 77 (8th Cir. 2006) (student
failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that he made specific requests for accommodation
which the university unreasonably denied; student must demonstrate that such
accommodations would render him otherwise qualified)

Carten v. Kent State University, 78 Fed. Appx. 499, 27 NDLR ¶ 8 (6th Cir. 2003)
(unpublished opinion) (upholding dismissal of student who failed to notify graduate school
that he had a disability and needed accommodation before being dismissed)

Goldstein v. Harvard University, 77 Fed. Appx. 534, 26 NDLR ¶ 316 (1st Cir. 2003)
(unpublished opinion) (university cannot have violated the ADA’s duty to accommodate
when it had no knowledge of former student’s alleged disability)

Wong v. Regents of the University of California, 192 F.3d 807, 16 NDLR ¶ 93 (9th Cir.
1999) (Wong I) (student has burden of proof on identifying accommodations; burden shifts to
university to demonstrate same is unreasonable or student not qualified despite
accommodation)

Falcone v. University of Minnesota, 388 F.3d 656, 29 NDLR ¶ 96 (8th Cir. 2004) (student
failed to carry burden of establishing that weekly feedback meetings with faculty would have
rendered him otherwise qualified, even though this accommodation was set forth in the
disability services office letter and was not always honored; dismissal upheld)

Corey v. Western Connecticut State University, 27 NDLR 272 (D.Conn. 2004) (blind
student has right to go forward on allegation that university failed to provide reasonable
accommodation based on its alleged mistaken and irrational belief that he could not become
-16-
music teacher)

el Kouni v. Trustees of Boston University, 2001 WL 1254906 (D. Mass. 2001) (student
with mental impairment failed to identify any accommodation which would have rendered
him otherwise qualified)

Colombini v. Members of Bd. of Directors of Empire College School of Law, 2001 WL
1006785 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (law school could not have violated the ADA for failing to provide
reasonable accommodations when student failed to identify any accommodation which
school denied)

Garcia v. State University of New York Health Sciences Center at Brooklyn, 2000 WL
1469551, 19 NDLR ¶ 57 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) aff’d on other grounds, 280 F.3d 98, 22 NDLR ¶
30 (2d Cir. 2001) (student's failure to demonstrate that medical school's proffered
accommodations were unreasonable defeats claim that school had obligation to consider
evaluator's recommendations)

Onondaga Community College, Case No. 02-07-2055, 108 LRP 11164 (OCR Region II
2007) (finding no failure to modify absentee policy when student never requested same)

Montclair State University, Case No. 02-06-2095, 107 LRP 40041 (OCR Region II 2007)
(although student alleged that professor had agreed to allow him to take an independent study
as an accommodation, which the professor denied, OCR found that disability procedures do
not permit students to request accommodations directly from professors)

Loyola University Chicago, Case No. 05-05-2139, 33 NDLR 256 (OCR Region V 2006)
(student who failed to notify university of a failure of accommodation has not met his
burden)

Concord Career Institute, Case No. 09-05-2022, 32 NDLR 149 (OCR Region IX 2005)
(college’s lack of written procedures exonerated student who failed to timely request
accommodations)

Aurora University (IL), Case No. 05-03-2081, 27 NDLR ¶ 228 (OCR Region V 2003)
(university did not unlawfully discriminate against student with LD who failed to notify
professors each term of her need for accommodations and failed out of program)

Redlands Community College (OK), 18 NDLR ¶ 241 (OCR 2000) (upholding dismissal of
student who failed despite accommodations in excess of ADA/504 minimum requirements)
B.

Processing Accommodation Requests
Hartnett v. Fielding Graduate Institute, 33 NDLR 130 (2nd Cir. 2006) (unpublished
opinion) (Second Circuit remands case to lower court to determine whether ADA requires an
“interactive process” for student accommodations; a reasonable jury could conclude that
institution failed to engage in good faith with Ph.D. student diagnosed with Lupus)
-17-

Wong v. Regents of the University of California, 192 F.3d 807, 16 NDLR ¶ 93 (9th Cir.
1999) (Wong I) (medical school dean violated ADA by failing to gather information to
determine if student’s requested accommodations would fundamentally alter or substantially
modify institutional standards)

Bevington v. Wright State University, 23 Fed. Appx. 444 (6th Cir. 2001) (opinion
unpublished) (dismissing lawsuit filed by mother and two adult sons who claimed that
University had obligation to develop a written plan under the ADA/Rehabilitation Act)

Central Carolina Community College, Case No. 11-06-2033, 107 LRP 36682 (OCR 2006)
(faulting college for failing to provide effective notice to inmate students as to the procedure
for securing accommodations; here, student denied effective interpreting services)

Elmhurst College, Case No. 05-05-2138, 33 NDLR 255 (OCR Region V 2006) (college did
not violate the Rehabilitation Act by requiring student to identify himself to faculty as
condition of receiving accommodations)

Art Institute of Pittsburgh, Case No. 03-05-2034, 33 NDLR 49 (OCR Region III 2005)
(college’s procedures requiring one month’s notice of need for disability accommodations
not unreasonable)

Mesabi Range Community and Technical College (MN), Case No. 05-04-2081, 30 NDLR
¶ 103 (OCR Region V 2005) (dismissing claim that college failed to accommodate student’s
emotional disorders when she failed to engage in “interactive process” with disabilities
services office)

Florida Agriculture & Mechanical University, Case No. 04-02-2082, 103 LRP 11557
(OCR Region IV 2003) (dismissing claim that university failed to accommodate student’s
narcolepsy when student failed to go through proper channels)

Cleveland State University (OH), Case No. 05-01-2031, 22 NDLR ¶ 209 (OCR Region I
2001) (dismissing claim of student with mental impairments who refused to fill out the
paperwork necessary to seek accommodations from the college)

University of California, Santa Cruz, Case No. 09-97-2169 (OCR Region IX 1999)
(although professor engaged in appropriate deliberative process by discussing need for
adjustment in homework requirements and allowing student to take course over two
semesters rather than waive or alter homework expectations, whether accommodation request
amounts to fundamental alteration should not be left exclusively with professor)

Johns Hopkins University (MD), Case No. 03-98-2033 (OCR Region III 1999) (although
university’s efforts were imperfect, student’s actions and decisions, primarily not taking
advantage of proffered accommodations, excused university’s noncompliance)

Temple University (PA), Case No. 03-99-2049, 19 NDLR ¶ 32 (OCR Region III 1999)
(university had no duty to accommodate student who failed to follow established procedures)
-18-

Montgomery College (MD), Case No. 03-99-2059, 19 NDLR ¶ 90 (OCR Region III 1999)
(college need not honor student's accommodation request so long as it provides reasonable
alternative accommodation)

University of New Mexico, Case No. 08-98-2070, 15 NDLR ¶ 157 (OCR Region VIII 1998)
(upholding university’s actions in light of student’s failure to follow established procedures
for receiving accommodations and failure to notify university of disability until after it
dismissed her)

University of LaVerne (CA), Case No. 09-96-2148 (OCR Region IX 1997) (three and one
half month delay between request for accommodation and approval unreasonable)

Chesapeake College (MD), Case No. 03-96-2078 (OCR Region III 1996) (upholding
college policy obligating students to register with disability services office two months prior
to semester and request accommodations two weeks in advance of need)

West Virginia University, Case No. 03-95-2055 (OCR Region III 1996) (student’s failure to
follow known university procedures exonerated university from liability)
C.
Test Accommodations
(1)
Notice of Need

Singh v. George Washington University, 36 NDLR 1 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (medical student
who requested accommodations after she had been recommended for dismissal made a
timely request)

Frank v. University of Toledo, No. 06-1442, 108 LRP 1325 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (Ph.D.
candidate who met with disability office did not request specific testing accommodations
prior to comprehensive examination cannot claim a failure to accommodate; for subsequent
exams, the university reasonably attempted to accommodate the student who either refused
proffered accommodations and/or did not follow proper protocol)

Michigan State University, Case No. 15-04-2022, 29 NDLR 90 (OCR Region XV 2004)
(university did not violate ADA/Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide student with reader
and separate testing room when she never requested same)

Notre Dame University, Case No. 05-04-2079, 30 NDLR 102 (OCR Region V 2005)
(university did not violate ADA/Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide student with
extended time and quiet testing environment when he could not establish that he ever
requested same)

Austin Peay State University (TN), 22 NDLR ¶ 237, Case No. 04-01-2090 (OCR Region
IV 2001) (dismissing claim of student with learning disability who asserted that university
-19-
violated ADA/Rehabilitation Act by failing to offer her multiple choice tests when she never
requested same)

University of Akron (OH), Case No. 15-99-2013 (OCR Region XV 2000) (denying claim
of student who failed to give proper notice to professor of need for testing accommodation as
specifically required)

Florida Atlantic University, Case No. 04-97-2032 (OCR Region IV 1997) (upholding
practice that students give minimum three days notice of need for testing accommodations
and one week notice for exams)

Edmonds Community College (WA), Case No. 10-96-2044 (OCR Region X 1996)
(upholding college’s refusal to accommodate student who only provided one hour’s notice of
disability prior to test)
(2)
Faculty Responsibilities

Bevington v. Ohio University, No. 03-4031, 27 NDLR 275 (6th Cir. 2004) (opinion
unpublished) (dismissing lawsuit filed by student diagnosed with ADHD who claimed
professor acted unreasonably in violation of ADA/Rehabilitation Act when professor treated
all students in similar fashion [changing syllabus on chapters covered, assignments and
length of final exam])

California State University, Los Angeles, Case No. 09-03-2197, 28 NDLR ¶ 302 (OCR
Region IX 2004) (OCR faulted university for permitting its faculty to override
accommodations agreed upon between the student and the disability services office: open
book or open note exams; campus lacked effective grievance procedure to resolve disputes)

University of California, Santa Cruz, Case No. 09-97-2169 (OCR Region IX 1999)
(faulting university for failing to ensure that test proctors provided student with same level of
instruction clarification afforded nondisabled students)

San Jose City College (CA), Case No. 09-97-2093, 12 NDLR ¶ 193 (OCR Region IX 1997)
(faulting college for allowing professor to deny agreed upon testing accommodations)

San Francisco State University (CA), Case No. 09-96-2212, 10 NDLR ¶ 384 (OCR Region
IX 1997) (faulting university for failing to ensure student received extended time during lab
practicum; difficulty posed by nature of scheduling exams or lack of proctor insufficient
bases for denial)

Bates College (ME), Case No. 01-96-2053 (OCR Region I 1997) (faulting college for failing
to have adequate procedures for ensuring that faculty received proper notice of needs of
students with disabilities)
-20-
(3)
Extended Time

Buhendwa v. University of Colorado at Boulder, 34 NDLR 41 (10th Cir. 2007)
(unpublished opinion) (Court rejects discrimination claim based on test-taking anxiety;
professor ceased providing extra time based on student being asleep during exam)

University of Illinois, 30 NDLR 104, Case No. 05-04-2078 (OCR Region V 2004) (OCR
faulted university for failing to ensure that a student approved for test accommodations
received similar accommodations on quizzes; unacceptable to merely give greater weight to
tests over quizzes when difficult to accommodate)

Michigan State University, Case No. 15-04-2022, 29 NDLR 90 (OCR Region XV 2004)
(instructor did not deny student extended time, but student finished some exams early;
student failed to request extended time for labs from teaching assistant)

Redlands Community College, Case No. 06-99-2170 (OCR Region VI 1999) (student with
learning disability who received extended time on tests cannot challenge manner of test
administration after receiving final grade)

College of DuPage, Case No. 05-98-2033 (OCR Region V 1998) (college did not violate
Section 504 when it denied student diagnosed with learning disability three and a half times
as long to take tests as nondisabled students when such was not supported by documentation)

Corning Community College (NY), Case No. 02-97-2045 (OCR Region II 1997) (faulting
nursing program for putting categorical cap on amount of extended time)

Educational Testing Service, Case No. 02-94-2076 (OCR Region II 1995) (faulting agency
for setting categorical caps on extended time)
(4)
Readers

Root v. Georgia State Bd. of Veterinary Medicine, 114 F.Supp.2d 1324 (N.D. Ga. 2000)
rev’d in part, vacated in part, 252 F.3d 443 (11th Cir. 2001) (TABLE, NO. 00-14751)
(question of fact whether Board provided qualified reader capable of pronouncing medical
terms)

Northern Va. Community College, Case No. 11-06-2036, 107 LRP 36680 (OCR 2006)
(upholding college’s determination that providing a reader for an automobile emissions
inspection course final exam would fundamentally alter course objectives; exam is perquisite
for becoming DEQ inspector where ability to read independently is essential function of
position)

Michigan State University, Case No. 15-04-2022, 29 NDLR 90 (OCR Region XV 2004)
(even had student requested a reader for computer labs, the provision of one would not have
been appropriate where the language is computer rather than English)
-21-
(5)
Personal Assistance

Florida Atlantic University, Case No. 04-97-2032 (OCR Region IV 1997) (holding that
providing assistance to help student complete essay exam constituted a personal service not
required by Section 504/ADA)

Trevecca Nazarene University (TN), Case No. 09-97-2055 (OCR Region IV 1997)
(upholding refusal to provide assistant to aid student in completing multiple choice exam on
basis that such is a personal service not required by Section 504/ADA)
(6)
Altering Test Administration

Hoffman v. Contra Costa College, 21 Fed. Appx. 748 (9th Cir. 2001) (opinion unpublished)
(college provided reasonable accommodations to student with multiple sclerosis by offering
her extended time, a quiet testing location, and use of formula sheets; college is under no
obligation to require professor to permit student to access notes and other materials during
examination, nor is college obligated to locate a professor who would honor student’s
request)

Stern v. University of Osteopathic Medicine and Health Sciences, 220 F.3d 906 (8th Cir.
2000) (upholding school’s refusal to permit student to supplement multiple choice responses
when not supported by expert testimony; school did provide extended time in a private room
and audio taped questions)

University of Akron (OH), 103 LRP 11607, Case No. 15-02-2049 (OCR Region XV 2003)
(upholding sociology department’s refusal to honor student’s request for open book, take
home exam; memory and recall are essential course objectives that accommodation would
defeat)

Villanova University (PA), Case No. 03-98-2077, 16 NDLR ¶ 170 (OCR Region III 1999)
(breaking down complex questions into parts and responding in outline form rather than
essay for student diagnosed with learning disability would fundamentally alter nature of law
school program, not required by Section 504)

University of North Texas Health Science Center, Case No. 06-98-2002, 102 LRP 38730
(OCR Region VI 1998) (upholding physician assistant program's insistence that student
demonstrate proficiency using cadaver rather than textbook plates in anatomy class)

Metropolitan State College (CO), Case No. 08-98-2013, 15 NDLR ¶ 92 (OCR Region VIII
1998) (upholding accounting department's refusal to waive multiple choice tests as
fundamental alteration based on results of deliberative process)

Pima Community College (AZ), Case No. 08-97-2014, 13 NDLR ¶ 31 (OCR Region VIII
1998) (upholding professor’s refusal to allow student to take open book exam which defeated
exam’s purpose of measuring recall, despite physician’s recommendation based on student’s
poor memory occasioned by learning disability)
-22-

Central Connecticut State University, Case No. 01-97-2005 (OCR Region I 1998)
(upholding professor’s refusal to allow student to take open book as an essential instructional
requirement was to demonstrate knowledge and mastery of course material)

University of Massachusetts, Case No. 01-97-2095, 12 NDLR ¶ 315 (OCR Region I 1998)
(upholding professor’s refusal to allow student to take exam at home; recall deemed
essential)

Cosumnes River College (CA), Case No. 09-96-2002 (OCR Region IX 1996) (upholding
professor’s administration of different make-up examination given as accommodation)

Golden Gate University (CA), Case No. 09-96-2088, 9 NDLR ¶ 182 (OCR Region IX
1996) (upholding instructor’s refusal to modify test questions on basis of unreasonableness
and academic integrity; ADA/Section 504 do not guarantee “equal outcomes” but only
“equal opportunity”)

San Jose State University (CA), Case No. 09-96-2053 (OCR Region IX 1996) (upholding
university refusal to provide student with advisor/coach of his choosing to explain
examination questions when instructor was available to do so)

Northwestern College (IL), Case No. 05-94-2197 (OCR Region V 1995) (college need not
orally test student when documentation did not specifically support necessity)
(7)
Test Location

Redden v. Minneapolis Community and Technical Community College, 104 LRP 18236
(Minn. Ct. Appeals 2004) (unpublished opinion) (college made good faith effort to provide
nursing student with narcolepsy accommodations when notified two days before final despite
the unavailability of a private room; documentation did not recommend any
accommodations)

Broward Community College, Case No. 04-07-2049, 37 NDLR 159 (OCR Region IV
2007) (consistent with the college’s disability procedures, student and professor were
authorized to amend testing practices, which student repeatedly requested, even if it resulted
in foregoing certain accommodations)

George Mason University, Case No. 11-06-2077, 107 LRP 28416 (OCR 2007) (student
failed to demonstrate that she suffered harm by taking test outside classroom; she could have
contacted her professor to ask questions; student did not object at the time)

University of Illinois, 30 NDLR 104, Case No. 05-04-2078 (OCR Region V 2004) (OCR
faulted university for having student take test in stairway nook when disability services office
had approved a “reduced distraction” testing location)
-23-

New England School of Law (MA), Case No. 01-96-2088 (OCR Region I 1997) (faulting
school for failing to ensure that students who take exams in different setting receive same
instructions as nondisabled students)

Salem State College (MA), Case No. 01-95-2089 (OCR Region I 1996) (Section 504/ADA
do not give students right to demand particular accommodation; upholding testing
arrangement in lab in professor’s presence rather than testing center)

Everett Community College (WA), Case No. 10-96-2059, 10 NDLR ¶ 115 (OCR Region X
1996) (college not obligated to administer exam in hospital setting)
(8)

D.
Make-up Exams
Harvard University (MA), 19 NDLR 166, Case No. 01-99-2119 (OCR Region I 2000)
(upholding extension program fee of $25 for make-up exams unless student establishes that
s/he is disabled and postponement justified by disability)
Other Evaluation

Amir v. Saint Louis University, 184 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 1999) (request of medical student
diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder to receive a passing grade in a clinical rotation
he failed did not constitute a reasonable accommodation)

Cabrini College (PA), 30 NDLR 26, Case No. 03-04-2076 (OCR Region IV 2004) (college
failed to provide appropriate testing accommodations including double-time, large fonts and
clear contrasts for a student with a visual impairment taking placement test)

Oregon State University, Case No. 10-98-2071 (OCR Region X 1999) (upholding
university requirement that student enrolled in Ph.D. program take her dissertation orally,
albeit with accommodations such as breaks, extra time and sensitivity)

University of Massachusetts, Case No. 01-97-2095, 12 NDLR ¶ 315 (OCR Region I 1998)
(upholding university’s refusal to permit student to work on project alone; ability to work in
team deemed essential in study of graduate school psychology)
E.
Course Substitution

Strahl v. Trustees of Purdue University, No. 07-61, 109 LRP 24433 (N.D. Ind. 2009)
(university did not fail to reasonably accommodate student with Asperger’s Syndrome after
he had successfully completed two semesters in Spanish, granted a substitution by taking
French, but refused a second substitution after he was found to have cheated on an exam)

Spychalsky v. Sullivan, 103 LRP 40719 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (law student failed to show that
any disability he may have obligated school to waive completion of required tax law class)
-24-

Guckenberger v. Trustees of Boston University, 8 F.Supp.2d 82, 13 NDLR ¶ 59 (D. Mass.
1998) (university engaged in deliberative process absent unfounded stereotypes about
persons with disabilities in determining that its foreign language requirement was essential
and that no other course taught in English could reasonably substitute; research did not
support math substitution as reasonable accommodation)

Pell v. Trustees of Columbia University, 1998 WL 19989, 11 NDLR ¶ 322 (S.D.N.Y.
1998) (student who successfully completed foreign language requirement at another college
cannot claim university that failed to grant her a course substitution violated Section 504)

Hudson County Community College, Case No. 02-05-2154, 23 NDLR 198 (OCR Region
II 2006) (college had no obligation to substitute required math courses when student’s
documentation did not suggest such was necessary)

Parkland College (IL), Case No. 05-01-2034 (OCR Region V 2001) (upholding two year
college’s requirement that all students seeking to transfer to four year institutions take
mathematics coursework, despite student’s documented learning disability in math)

Western Nebraska Community College (NE), Case No. 07-99-2027 (OCR Region VII
2000) (resolution agreement – factors for determining: colleges general treatment of course
substitutions, do experts recommend substitution for particular disability, whether student’s
and college’s experts recommend substitution for particular student; whether course is
essential)

Wright State University (OH), Case No. 15-00-2025 (OCR Region XV 2000) (upholding
university requirement that student successfully complete research course with quantitative
reasoning for liberal arts degree; eliminating mathematical computations from course
sufficient accommodation)

Germanna Community College (VA), Case No. 11-99-2166 (OCR Region XI 1999)
(college had no obligation to grant course substitution when student failed to demonstrate
with appropriate documentation that his weakness in math was itself disabling or associated
with an ADA/504 disability)

Audrey Cohen College (NY), Case No. 02-98-2038 (OCR Region II 1998) (college did not
violate Section 504 when it refused to exempt student diagnosed with a psychological
disability from taking courses that required her to engage in community service work;
curriculum is state chartered and deemed essential to the school of business degree program
and has never been waived)

California State University - Fullerton, Case No. 09-98-2180 (OCR Region IX 1998)
(upholding university’s decision to deny course substitution to student who failed to make
“reasonably diligent effort” to complete math class with reasonable accommodations;
documentation did not indicate that such effort would be futile)
-25-

Mt. San Antonio (CA), Case No. 09-96-2151-I (OCR Region IX 1997) (unless math is
considered an essential degree requirement, colleges must consider course substitution and
may not require student to try and fail when documentation asserts that student’s disability
prevents success even with accommodation)

Wingate University (NC), Case No. 04-96-2051 (OCR Region IV 1996) (upholding
university general education requirement that all students take foreign language courses,
regardless of disability-related difficulties)
F.
Extended Time to Complete Course

Smith v. University of the State of N.Y., 1997 WL 800882, 11 NDLR ¶ 234 (W.D.N.Y.
1997) (university’s failure to grant student with clinical depression an incomplete, place him
on provisional status or inactive status unjustified in light of evidence that professors have
done so for similarly situated nondisabled students, raises presumption of ADA/504
violation)

California State University - Sacramento (CA), Case No. 09-95-2154-I, 8 NDLR ¶ 372
(OCR Region IX 1996) (upholding university’s refusal to grant second extension for
completing course when first extension granted on basis of disability)

University of Wisconsin - Madison, Case No. 05-95-2105 (OCR Region V 1996)
(upholding university’s refusal to grant fourth extension to complete masters thesis; no
likelihood that another extension would be effective)
G.
Extended Time to Complete Assignments

Shepard v. Irving, 77 Fed. Appx. 615, 26 NDLR ¶ 204 (4th Cir. 2003) (opinion unpublished)
(remanding claim to District Court on whether university violated ADA/Rehabilitation Act
by failing to permit student with learning disability additional time to complete assignment,
who then received an “F”)

LaMarca v. Capella University, No. 05-00642 (C.D. Calif. 2007) (student’s amorphous
request for unlimited time to complete assignments is not reasonable, particularly when
student was able to complete assignments within given time frame and obtained superior
grades; and eliminating several weeks of coursework and decreasing the number of
assignments in order to permit student to keep up with classmates is a substantial
modification of the program and not reasonable; student’s refusal to accept an offer for
directed study which would have addressed all of his needs bars a claim of failure to
accommodate)
-26-

H.
Doe v. Haverford Sch., 39 NDLR ¶ 266 (E.D. Penn. 2003) (Court refuses to substitute its
judgment for that of educators in independent school who refused to grant further extensions
on assignments for student who consistently failed to complete coursework in timely fashion;
fact that school had provided similar accommodation in prior years does not obligate
institution to honor request indefinitely)
Extended Time to Complete Degree

Long v. Howard University, 550 F.3d 21, 38 NDLR 56 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (although jury
concluded that university discriminated against Ph.D. candidate by refusing to modify its
“course viability” rule, the statute of limitations barred his claim)

Quinn v. University of Oklahoma, No. 07-6045, 37 NDLR 21 (10th Cir. 2008) (Ph.D.
candidate’s claim that university’s refusal to grant a sixth one year extension to complete his
dissertation was discriminatory is time-barred)

Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Ca., 166 F. 3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999) (upholding medical
school’s refusal to extend time between clinical rotations to enable student diagnosed with
learning disability to read texts beforehand when student did not request such prior to
dismissal, and when school already had provided a decelerated schedule as an
accommodation)

Bastyr University (WA), Case No. 10-03-2064, 104 LRP 35889 (OCR Region X 2004)
(OCR upheld a university’s refusal to extend the time for completion of its Masters degree in
Applied Behavioral Science (five years) when it had already agreed to extend it twice by one
year and the five year requirement was required by its accrediting agency; student failed to
submit necessary written paperwork to receive extension)

The New School for Social Research (NY), Case No. 02-97-241 (OCR Region II 1998)
(school that had granted student five extensions to complete Ph.D. requirements did not
violate Section 504 by refusing to continue his studies beyond twelve years when no request
was made for disability-related reasons)

University of Washington, 15 NDLR ¶ 125 (OCR Region X 1998) (law school practice of
charging tuition per quarter versus per credit does not violate the ADA or Section 504 even
though some students with disabilities require a reduced course load; nondisabled students
who take longer to complete degree are similarly treated)
I.

Home Instruction
Cabrillo Community College (CA), Case No. 09-96-2150 (OCR Region IX 1996)
(upholding college’s refusal to provide semester-long “home tutoring” for course with lab
component; college’s responsibility to provide auxiliary aids does not generally extend
“beyond the physical boundaries of its educational programs wherever those programs are
operated” and home-study is a personal service not required by Section 504 or the ADA)
-27-
J.
Attendance

Maczaczyj v. New York, 956 F.Supp. 403, 11 NDLR ¶ 59 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) (upholding
requirement of in-person residency; participation by phone constituted fundamental alteration
of program)

University of Illinois, 30 NDLR 104, Case No. 05-04-2078 (OCR Region V 2004) (OCR
found no fault with an instructor’s announced policy of failing any student who missed in
excess of ten classes; evidence adduced that policy was applied to nondisabled students as
well)

Seattle University (WA), Case No. 10-03-2050, 27 NDLR ¶ 321 (OCR Region X 2003)
(law school articulated legitimate educational rationale for requiring classroom attendance)

Metropolitan State College (CO), Case No. 08-98-2013, 15 NDLR ¶ 92 (OCR Region VIII
1998) (upholding accounting department's refusal to relax attendance policy after engaging in
deliberative process and concluding such would result in fundamental alteration based of
program)

Cabrillo Community College (CA), Case No. 09-96-2150 (OCR Region IX 1996)
(essentiality of attendance decided on case-by-case basis in light of class requirements and
methodology; when attendance is not essential, college should consider taping classes for
students whose disabilities prevent attendance)
K.

L.
Part-Time Status
Los Angeles Community College District (CA); East Los Angeles College (CA), Case
Nos. 09-95-2189; 09-95-2190 (OCR Region IX 1996) (colleges violated Section 504/ADA
by failing to justify imposition of minimum prescribed course load in order to participate in
student governance)
Remote Access

Capella University (MN), Case No. 05-04-2063 (OCR Region V 2004) (student failed to
establish that university’s web-based software program was inaccessible to students with
learning disabilities; all students experienced difficulty when university changed platform;
student obtained A’s in courses)

Bastyr University (WA), Case No. 10-03-2064, 104 LRP 35889 (OCR Region X 2004)
(university established that to permit student to take course remotely would result in a
fundamental alteration of its program)
-28-
VIII. AUXILIARY AIDS
A.
Generally

Bevington v. Wright State University, 23 Fed. Appx. 444 (6th Cir. 2001) (opinion
unpublished) (university did not violate ADA/Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide
students with tutorial program which neither law recognizes as a reasonable accommodation)

University of Hawaii-Manoa, Case No. 10-06-2001, 107 LRP 41442 (OCR Region X 2006)
(OCR faulted the university for failing to provide a student diagnosed with multiple chemical
sensitivity with full-spectrum florescent lighting in certain bathrooms, elevators and hallways
(although it had installed such lighting in classrooms and other locations) as recommended
by her treating physician and psychologist; the university failed to provide the student with
clear notice that more documentation was necessary and OCR concluded that the
accommodations sought would not fundamentally alter the program)

Appalachian State University, Case No. 11-05-2085, 34 NDLR 176 (OCR DC Office
2006) (without deciding, OCR suggests that software program to improve student’s pitch is
personal device/need and not university’s responsibility)

Central Michigan University, Case No. 15-00-2015, 18 NDLR ¶ 242 (OCR Region XV
2000) (university did not violate ADA/504 by discontinuing tutorial services, which are not
considered reasonable accommodation but rather a personal study aid)

Daytona Beach Community College (FL), 19 NDLR ¶ 91, Case No. 04-99-2206 (OCR
Region IV 1999) (any failure to receive timely accommodations resulted from student's
failure to follow proper procedures)

Hood College (MD), Case No. 03-97-2062, 12 NDLR ¶ 127 (OCR Region III 1997)
(ADA/504 do not obligate college to provide remediation, positive feedback or tutorial
assistance)

San Francisco State University (CA), Case No. 09-96-2200, 11 NDLR ¶ 72 (OCR Region
IX 1997) (university that offers tutorial assistance, which is not required by the ADA/504,
has no obligation to honor student’s personal choice of tutors)

York Technical College (SC), Case No. 04-95-2146, 8 NDLR ¶ 60 (OCR Region IV 1995)
(student who failed to request equipment aide through known proper channels denied relief)

Columbia Basin College (WA), Case No. 10-95-2031, 7 NDLR ¶ 188 (OCR Region X
1995) (discouraging professor from requiring student to sign waiver of rights; repeated public
requests about student’s understanding of material discriminated against her)
-29-
B.

C.
Fee-Based Services
Mercyhurst College (PA), Case No. 03-96-2118 (OCR Region III 1997) (upholding
college’s right to limit participation in program designed for students with learning
disabilities; no evidence slots awarded based on race; but charging fees for auxiliary aids and
academic adjustments improper)
Interpreter Services

Hayden v. Redwoods Community College District, 33 NDLR 20 (N.D. Cal. 2006)
(denying college’s motion for summary judgment on issue of undue burden and inability to
secure qualified interpreters in timely manner; college budget as opposed to budget of
disability services office is considered; jury to decide whether student is entitled to her own
personal interpreter)

Arizona State University, Case No. 08-05-2006 (OCR 2005) (although an interpreter signed
with one hand during two classes due to an injury, student’s failure to notify anyone about
her dissatisfaction with quality of service absolved university of liability; although university
was unable to provide real time captioning or interpreters in nine out of 84 classes due to
personnel shortage, it did not violate Rehabilitation Act/ADA by acting swiftly and
responsibly in an effort to address need, including contacting six agencies, area schools and
obtaining additional funding)

Highline Community College (WA), Case No. 10-05-2007 (OCR 2005) (college violated
the Rehabilitation Act/ADA by refusing to provide real time captioning services for a
paralegal student who requested it and whose documentation supported it when evidence that
in-class transcription was ineffective; complexity of course material is a factor in choice of
accommodations)

Harvard University (MA), 30 NDLR 24, Case No. 01-04-2029 (OCR Region I 2005)
(student cannot complain about scheduling of interpreters after entering into agreement to
arrange same for herself, after being dissatisfied with the manner in which interpreters had
been provided)

Rochester Institute of Technology (NY), 30 NDLR 25, Case No. 02-02-2065 (OCR Region
II 2004) (institute discriminated against student by requiring her to use sign language
interpreter vs. cued speech transliterator and C-Print)

Idaho State University, Case No. 10-03-2030; 10-03-2047 (OCR Region X 2003)
(university provided experienced interpreters for summer program; university took
appropriate action in response to students complaints; students, who received A’s, failed to
establish that they were denied the benefits of the program)

Yuba Community College (CA), Case No. 09-02-2173, 27 NDLR ¶ 62 (OCR Region IX
2003) (college violated the Rehabilitation Act and ADA by failing to provide student with
-30-
qualified ASL interpreter by first day of class, despite her timely request; college could not
explain why it interpreted PE class only two times per week)

Arizona State University, Case No. 08-01-2047, 22 NDLR ¶ 239 (OCR Region VIII 2001)
(university’s refusal to provide interpreter services for student wishing to study abroad does
not violate ADA or Rehabilitation Act which do not apply outside U.S. borders)

California State University, Case No. 09-99-2273, 19 NDLR ¶ 59 (OCR Region IX 1999)
(university did not violate the ADA/504 by reassigning interpreter to another class when
student did not show in accordance with published policies; university also used "best
practices" in addressing student's needs in light of documented shortage of interpreter
services in geographical area)

San Diego Community College District (CA), Case Nos. 09-09-99-2078, 09-99-2095, 0999-2104 (OCR Region IX 1999) (college made diligent efforts to respond to critical shortage
of interpreters; permissible to prioritize courses that will be interpreted based on academic
need; involving students in process critical)
D.
Notetaking Assistance

Di Lella v. University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, 570
F.Supp.2d 1, 37 NDLR 184 (D.D.C. 2008) (court refuses to dismiss student’s claim that law
school failed to provide notetaking assistance and substitute transcriptions were untimely or
not provided)

San Diego State University, Case No. 09-08-2019, 108 LRP 51668 (OCR Region IX 2008)
(OCR found that the university had failed to properly respond to student’s concerns
regarding the provision of a notetaker)

Onondaga Community College, Case No. 02-07-2055, 108 LRP 11164 (OCR Region II
2007) (taking no issue with manner in which notetaking services are provided: seek
volunteers; if unsuccessful, tape record and request faculty notes or faculty assistance;
student has duty to notify disability office if notetaking services are inadequate; notetaking
assistance may be discontinued if student fails to come to class)

St. Edwards University, Case No. 06-06-2041, 106 LRP 57029 (OCR Region VI 2006)
(even though student did not receive notes 100% of the time, he failed to show harm passing
all his classes and obtaining a 4.0; nor did he establish why he could not obtain notes from
some other source, such as the professor)

Central Missouri State University, Case No. 07-04-2137, 105 LRP 1558 (OCR Region VII
2005) (even though assigned notetakers did not always provide effective service, student
failed to timely notify university of difficulties and when so notified, university took
appropriate measures consistent with Rehabilitation Act/ADA)
-31-

Phoenix College (AZ), 29 NDLR ¶ 184 (OCR Region VIII 2004) (college which had
provisionally supplied note-taker to student pending documentation was justified in ceasing
accommodation when student failed to produce requested documentation)

Seattle University (WA), Case No. 10-03-2050, 27 NDLR ¶ 321 (OCR Region X 2003)
(law school is not obligated to provide notes to student in lieu of classroom attendance when
such is deemed essential)

University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown (PA), Case No. 03-03-2039, 27 NDLR ¶ 219 (OCR
Region III 2003) (university violated Section 504 by failing to provide agreed upon
notetakers; faculty should not have amended agreed upon accommodation without discussing
with disability services office per accommodation letter)

University of Massachusetts, Case No. 01-97- 2014 (OCR Region I 1998) (university
practice of limiting provision of notetaking services to when student attends class does not
violate Section 504 or the ADA when class attendance is deemed essential)

Florida Atlantic University, Case No. 04-97-2032 (OCR Region IV 1997) (policy of
providing notes weekly violates Section 504/ADA; but notes provided bi-weekly and one day
before tests and exams sufficient)

California State University - Sacramento, Case No. 09-95-2196 (OCR Region IX 1996)
(university that hired qualified notetaker who taped lectures, took and delivered notes to
student following class and provided verbatim transcript of lecture complied with Section
504/ADA)

Cosumnes River College (CA), Case No. 09-96-2002 (OCR Region IX 1996) (college not
obligated to provide class notes to student who fails to attend class for nondisability-related
reasons)
E.
Real Time Captioning

Harvard University (MA), 30 NDLR 24, Case No. 01-04-2029 (OCR Region I 2005)
(university under no obligation to provide transcription services to enable student to conduct
doctoral research absent a request; university may provide CART versus interpreting services
if effective)

Highline Community College (WA), 31 NDLR 205, Case No. 10-05-2007 (OCR 2005)
(college violated the Rehabilitation Act and ADA by failing to provide auxiliary aids and
services as effective as those provided non-disabled students by providing deaf student with
an in-class transcription service, based on a “meaning for meaning system” rather than her
requested word-for-word real time captioning recommended in her documentation as
evidenced by transcripts that excluded lecture content and which contained numerous
inaccuracies)
-32-

University of Mississippi, Case No. 06-99-2180 (OCR Region VI (1999) (OCR upholds the
right of the university to require updated documentation to support student's request for real
time captioning; university permitted to revisit essentiality of aid even when it had provided
it in the past)

San Diego Community College District (CA), Case Nos. 09-09-99-2078, 09-99-2095, 0999-2104 (OCR Region IX 1999) (suggesting that public institutions need to make an active
effort at offering real time captioning to students who are deaf/hard of hearing if such could
be effective)

Ball State University (IN), Case No. 05-96-2191 (OCR Region V 1996) (upholding
university refusal to provide real time captioning for four extracurricular activities when it
provided other effective accommodations)
F.
Instructional Materials in Alternate Format

Melendez v. Monroe College, No. 04-2266, 33 NDLR 168 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (college
reasonably accommodated blind student’s need for alternate format by communicating with
faculty and securing reading lists, arranging for books on tape through RFB&D and
providing reader services when RFB&D services were not timely)

Harvard University, Case No. 01-03-2053, 106 LRP 56945 (OCR Region I 2006) (OCR
noted a compliance concern in university’s ability to meet its stated goal of providing
alternate formatted texts and other materials two weeks in advance of assignment; student
may be obligated to notify university of courses, prioritize materials for scanning, identify
scanning problems and other reasonable tasks)

Central Missouri State University, Case No. 07-04-2041, 105 LRP 1560 (OCR Region VII
2004) (rejecting former graduate student’s assertions, OCR found that disability services
office worked diligently to provide the student with visual impairment with books on tape in
a timely manner; perfection in quality of tapes is not required; student failed to request that
classroom handouts be enlarged)

Texas Southern University, Case No. 06-03-2003, 27 NDLR ¶ 222 (OCR Region VI 2003)
(university under no obligation to aid student in gridding scantron for law student with
multiple sclerosis whose documentation did not recommend the need nor had student so
requested)

University of Alaska, at Anchorage, Case No. 10-99-2002 (OCR Region X 1999)
(upholding provision of books on tape rather than videotaped books or electronic books
based on documentation provided, unavailability of E-texts from publishers and effectiveness
of proffered accommodations)

Community College of Southern Nevada, Case No. 10-99-2007 (OCR Region X 2000)
(college failed to ensure timely delivery of and quality of text materials it taped-recorded for
students who are blind or learning disabled)
-33-

Valdosta State Univ. (GA), Case No. 04-98-2120, 16 NDLR ¶ 61 (OCR Region IV 1999)
(university violated the ADA and Section 504 by failing to timely provide textbooks in an
alternate format for a blind student)

City College of San Francisco (CA), Case No. 09-97-2145 (OCR Region IX 1998) (faulting
college for failing to provide Brailled translation of textbook used in preparation for taking
Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) exam)

Spokane Falls Community College (WA), Case No. 10-97-2012, 11 NDLR ¶ 227 (OCR
Region X 1997) (rejecting student’s demand on basis of impossibility that college provide
written instructional materials in ASL format)

Northeastern University (MA), Case No. 01-97-2006 (OCR Region I 1997) (university
may require student to purchase textbooks and send them to the Recordings for the Blind and
Dyslexic (RFB&D) so long as it agrees to provide personal attention when disability
precludes student from accomplishing demands)

California State University - Sacramento, Case No. 09-95-2196 (OCR Region IX 1996)
(student’s failure to advise university that RFB&D did not have book on tape exonerated it
from liability for failing to provide material via reader or some other means)
G.
Reader Services

University of Akron (OH), 103 LRP 11607, Case No. 15-02-2049 (OCR Region XV 2003)
(dismissing claim that university failed to provide agreed upon voice recognition software
when university purchased software and agreed to download student’s preferred “trained
voice” which student assumed would be ineffective)

Notre Dame College (NH), 20 NDLR ¶ 29 (OCR Region I 2000) (upholding private
institution's use of reader services, rather than technology, to meet print and computer
accessibility needs of students with visual impairments)

San Jose State University (CA), Case No. 09-96-2056 (OCR Region IX 1997) (although
university must accommodate nonstudent patrons using its public library, it may prioritize
accommodations based upon its overall mission, which for many campuses will necessarily
be to support and enhance access to its curricular objectives)

San Jose State University (CA), Case No. 09-95-2206 (OCR Region IX 1996) (when
technology is available, university must provide equal access to the Internet by installing
proper software; reader access insufficient)
-34-
H.
Calculator

Hamilton v. City College of the City of New York, 173 F.Supp.2d 181, 22 NDLR 90
(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (upholding engineering faculty’s refusal to permit use of calculator by
student with learning disability on final exam, despite permitting use on previous tests)

Bethune-Cookman College (FL), 30 NDLR 78, Case No. 04-04-2122 (OCR Region IV
2005) (upholding right of college to deny student use of calculator for remedial math, but
permitted use for advanced math coursework)
I.

J.

Tape Recording Meetings
San Jose State University (CA), Case No. 09-96-2056 (OCR Region IX 1997) (upholding
university's refusal to tape record meeting with student having visual impairment when it
provided him with audio version of meeting notes)
Other
University of Massachusetts, Case No. 01-97- 2014 (OCR Region I 1998) (no evidence that
LD specialist failed to work closely with professors in identifying key terms and reformatting
tests; needs of student diagnosed with learning disability, ADD and communication disorder
exceeded reasonable accommodations university could be expected to supply)
IX.
CONDUCT GENERALLY

Tylicki v. St. Onge, 297 Fed. Appx 65, 38 NDLR 50 (2d Cir. 2008) (unpublished opinion)
(community college did not discriminate against former student with mental condition by
failing to hold a manifestation hearing, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, which does not apply to higher education institutions; college may discipline
student for misconduct, even when resulting from his disability)

Bhatt v. University of Vermont, 37 NDLR ¶ 77 (VT Sup. Ct. 2008) (upholding medical
school’s dismissal and refusal to readmit student under state law who had falsified
documents about his clinical rotations and made false representations during a disciplinary
hearing; student had not identified himself as having a disability nor sought accommodation
until second hearing; even if conduct could have been caused by his Tourette’s Syndrome
and/or obsessive compulsive disorder, such conduct rendered student not otherwise qualified)

Shepard v. Irving, 77 Fed. Appx. 615, 26 NDLR ¶ 204 (4th Cir. 2003) (opinion unpublished)
(Honor Committee hearing plagiarism charge falls within ADA’s Title II “services,
programs, or activities,” access to which cannot be denied based on disability [here claiming
that university’s failure to permit student with learning disability representation by lawyer or
mother denied her access].)
-35-

Ascani v. Hofstra University, 173 F.3d 843 (2nd Cir. 1999) (unpublished opinion)
(upholding dismissal of student who threatened professor, even if behavior was caused by her
mental impairment; student is not otherwise qualified as she posed direct threat)

Di Lella v. University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, 570
F.Supp.2d 1, 37 NDLR 184 (D.D.C. 2008) (court upholds student’s one year suspension for
cheating and plagiarizing an exam; she failed to allege how her suspension was disability
based in light of the conduct the response to which deserve academic deference)

O’Connor v. College of Saint Rose, 31 NDLR ¶ 153 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (graduate student
failed to establish that failing grade was due to discrimination rather than his plagiarism)

Trznadel v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, 103 LRP 26884 (W.D. Mich. 2003) (law
school had legitimate interest in requiring student to conform conduct; no evidence that
school acted impermissibly in response to alleged undocumented seizure disorder)

Larson v. Snow College, No. 2-99CV1009C, 103 LRP 3791 (D.Utah 2000) (Court refuses
to dismiss former student’s ADA/504 claims alleging discriminatory and retaliatory conduct
based on mental illness by requiring her to enter into “Wellness Contract” following
hospitalization which allegedly required her to cease crying during class and other functions,
sleep a minimum of six hours per day, cease behaviors that frighten others to call school
officials during the evening and placing her on “social probation” and relieving her of her
position as student body vice president)

Stearns v. Board of Educ. for Warren Tp. High School Dist. #121, WL 1044832, 16
NDLR ¶ 266 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (school district did not violate the ADA or Section 504 by
dismissing student from playing basketball for violating district’s universal restrictions on
alcohol-related offenses, even if student is an alcoholic; waiver of conduct code is
unreasonable as a matter of law)

Childress v. Clement, 5 F.Supp. 2d 384, 12 NDLR ¶ 310 (E.D. Va. 1998) (upholding
dismissal of graduate student for plagiarism, despite contention that his learning disability
prevented him from mastering skill; waiving university’s honor code unreasonable)

Alamance Community College (NC), 32 NDLR 48, Case No. 11-05-2024 (OCR 2005)
(college did not discriminate by suspending student for one year after choking his aide)

Northwestern Business College (IL), 31 NDLR 252, Case No. 05-04-2108 (OCR 2005)
(rejecting student’s assertion that had college honored his request for leave to address his
post-traumatic stress disorder he would not have engaged in the conduct that led to his
suspension; student was not diagnosed with condition until after his suspension)

San Antonio College (TX), Case No. 06-03-2020 (OCR Region VI 2003) (nursing program
did not violate the ADA by lowering student’s grade based on multiple occasions of cheating
while taking examinations with accommodation)
-36-

Gonzaga University (WA), Case No. 10-03-2041, 27 NDLR ¶ 286 (OCR Region X 2003)
(even if student’s threatening behavior was related to her psychological disability, law school
permitted to impose indefinite suspension)

Regent University (NC), Case No. 11-03-2022, 27 NDLR ¶ 63 (OCR Region XI 2003)
(student’s erratic and threatening behavior justified university requirement that student
provide evaluation in support of his ability to handle graduate level work as condition of
readmission)

University of Michigan, Case No. 15-99-2142 (OCR Region XV 2000) (university entitled
to dismiss student and require evaluative information before returning after engaging in
sexually assaultive conduct, even if related to his disability)

The Art Institute of Los Angeles (CA), Case No. 09-99-2045 (OCR Region IX 2000)
(faulting Institute for failing to afford due process in its conduct code proceedings that may
have unfairly led to dismissal of student with bipolar disorder)

University of Massachusetts, Case No. 01-99-2003 (OCR Region I 2000) (faulting college
for failing to engage in deliberative process regarding need for accommodation in
disciplinary hearing)

Morehouse College of Medicine (GA), Case No. 04-98-2151, 17 NDLR ¶ 94 (OCR Region
IV 1999) (medical school did not violate § 504 by dismissing student with bipolar disorder
for misconduct inconsistent with school's technical standards)

Glenville State College (WV), Case No. 03-98-2051, 16 NDLR ¶ 31 (OCR Region III 1999)
(no finding of disability-based discrimination for faculty member refusing to grade materials
that he believed student could not have produced, given student's previous performance)

San Diego Community College District (CA), Case No. 09-98-2154 (OCR Region IX
1999) (although behavior of student with psychiatric condition justified college's
investigation of student's ability to meet its nonacademic standards and to apply its conduct
code in the manner applied to nondisabled students, college's disciplinary procedures
violated due process)

North Central Technical College (OH), Case No. 05-97-2038, 11 NDLR ¶ 326 (OCR
Region V 1997) (student’s inappropriate conduct justified college requirement that she obtain
counseling)

Troy State University (CA), Case No. 04-96-2043 (OCR Region IV 1997) (upholding ban
against student accessing building due to inappropriate conduct with staff member)

University of Vermont, Case No. 01-96-2035 (OCR Region I 1996) (university had no
obligation to accommodate student in judicial proceeding when it had no knowledge of
disability)
-37-

Cumberland County College (NJ), Case No. 02-95-2012 (OCR Region II 1996)
(permissible to require student to agree not to question/harass clinic staff based on past
improper conduct)

University of Oklahoma, Case Nos. 06-96-2002; 06-96-2068 (OCR Region VI 1996)
(university justified in refusing to answer TDD calls from student with no hearing or speech
impairment who tied up line and harassed staff)

Northern Michigan University, Case No. 05-95-2109, 7 NDLR ¶ 244 (OCR Region V
1995) (student’s disability-related disruptive behavior justified one-on-one teaching; placing
monitors in classroom for female student threatened by behavior; and issuing "official
request" to student to cease certain classroom behaviors)

Dixie College (UT), Case No. 08-95-2111, 8 NDLR ¶ 31 (OCR Region VIII 1995) (college
lawfully dismissed student who stalked and harassed professor)
X.
HEALTH AND SAFETY

Knapp v. Northwestern University, 101 F.3d 473, 9 NDLR ¶ 32 (7th Cir. 1996), cert.
denied (1997) (upholding university decision prohibiting student with cardiac condition from
participating in intercollegiate basketball based upon medical evidence substantiating
reasonable probability of substantial harm that could not be eliminated or reduced to
acceptable level)

Doe v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., 50 F.3d 1261, 6 NDLR ¶ 266 (4th
Cir. 1995) (upholding dismissal of resident surgeon with HIV; accommodations could not
reduce risk to acceptable level)

Husson College (ME), 31 NDLR 180, Case No. 01-05-2005 (OCR 2005) (college acted
reasonably by inquiring whether student could safely participate in overseas travel given her
admitted health problems and remoteness of location; college did not ever deny participation)

National University (CA), Case No. 09-99-2014 (OCR Region IX 2000) (faulting university
for requiring students to acknowledge, at the time of admission, that if they present a risk to
themselves or others they will be terminated from masters in counseling program)

San Diego Community College District (CA), Case No. 09-98-2154 (OCR Region IX
1999) (college misapplied "direct threat" factors in disciplining student with psychiatric
condition who may have threatened to harm herself or others)

Vassar College (NY), Case No. 02-95-2121, 9 NDLR ¶ 41 (OCR Region II 1996) (college
justified in obligating student who had posed direct threat to self to live in supervised
housing and monitor her medication)
-38-

Mt. Hood Community College (WA), Case No. 10-96-2010 (OCR Region X 1996)
(upholding college requirement that student with epilepsy be seizure-free for six months
before enrolling in lab course and clinic requiring machine operation)

Ohio State Schools of Cosmetology and T.H.E. Barber School, Case No. 05-94-2158, 7
NDLR ¶ 95 (OCR Region V 1995) (upholding requirement that student provide medical
documentation that epilepsy was under control following incident justifying concern)
XI.
INTERNSHIPS/CLINICAL ROTATIONS

Falcone v. University of Minn., 388 F.3d 656, 29 NDLR ¶ 96 (8th Cir. 2004) (medical
student’s inability to synthesize material and effectively communicate with patients rendered
him not otherwise qualified)

Doe v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 199 F.3d 146 (3rd Cir. 1999) (overturning
injunction requiring medical board to remove asterisk from scores taken with
accommodation which would be transmitted to medical student’s residency program)

Amir v. Saint Louis University, 184 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 1999) (court refuses to second
guess academic decision denying medical student’s request to complete clinical rotation in
Israel due to his obsessive compulsive disorder when consistent with school’s policy
prohibiting students experiencing academic difficulties from attending other universities nor
was there any evidence of a disability-related need to assign the student to another professor
as a reasonable accommodation)

Wong v. Regents of the University of California, 192 F.3d 807, 16 NDLR ¶ 93 (9th Cir.
1999) (Wong I) (although ADA does not necessarily require medical school to offer student
in clinical program same accommodations previously given [here additional time in between
rotations for reading material and enroll in rotations out of order], jury could conclude that
such evidence supported request as reasonable accommodation)

Zukle v. Regents of the University of California, 166 F. 3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999) (upholding
medical school’s refusal to rearrange clinical rotations for student diagnosed with a learning
disability on the basis that such constituted a fundamental alteration of program)

Herzog v. Loyola College in Maryland, Inc., 37 NDLR 50 (D.Md. 2008) (court refuses to
dismiss ADA complaint which alleges that college dismissed doctoral candidate with ADHD
even though the college based its dismissal largely upon the student’s behavior during a
psychology internship wherein he crossed boundaries as former student may establish that his
disability was a “motivating factor” in his dismissal whereas the Rehabilitation Act requires a
showing that the dismissal was “solely” based upon his disability)

Darian v. University of Massachusetts Boston, 980 F.Supp. 77 (D.Mass. 1997) (university
reasonably accommodated nursing student experiencing pregnancy-related complications by
limiting her contact to one patient per day in a facility with no steps; any further
-39-
accommodations would have lowered its academic standards or resulted in a substantial
modification of the program)

Pikes Peak Community College (CO), 31 NDLR ¶ 99, Case No. 08-05-2002, 18 NDLR ¶
215 (OCR 2005) (rejecting medical assistant student’s contention that college unreasonably
delayed her internship as the delay resulted from the restrictions student placed on placement
(unable to lift more than 5 pounds or work longer than 2-4 hours daily))

Western Washington University (WA), Case No. 10-00-2004, 18 NDLR ¶ 215 (OCR
Region X 2000) (rejecting student’s claim that university prohibited her from student
teaching based on blindness; consistent with policy, university expressed concern about
practicum with pending incompletes; permissible for faculty to discuss concerns about
classroom management needs in light of condition)

St. Petersburg Junior College (FL), Case No. 04-00-2170 (OCR Region IV 2000)
(upholding nursing program's refusal to waive clinical component of program or provide
attendant to perform clinical aspects)

Kyrene School District (AZ), Case No. 08-99-1067 (OCR Region VIII 1999) (school
district cannot be found to violate 504/ADA for failing to accommodate student teacher who
failed to request accommodation; mentioning that she has ADHD triggered no obligation on
part of school district; following instructions is an essential function of teaching)

Morehouse College of Medicine (GA), Case No. 04-98-2151, 17 NDLR ¶ 94 (OCR Region
IV 1999) (medical school did not violate § 504 by refusing to modify its clinical rotations'
"call" schedule for student diagnosed with bipolar disorder as such would have interfered
with her residency preparation)

Bowling Green University (OH), Case No. 05-98-2143 (OCR Region V 1999) (upholding
communication department's refusal, after deliberative process, to grant accommodations of
reduced case load, rotation at a distant site and request to work with certain types of clients;
case-by-case analysis required for requests for extensions of time and quiet area for report
completion, and permission to complete reports at home)

Seattle University (WA), Case No. 10-99-2003, 16 NDLR ¶ 236 (OCR Region X 1999)
(nursing program’s assignment of student to neuro-intensive care unit where she was closely
monitored was done as an accommodation for her learning disability based on previous
clinical difficulties and did not violate the ADA/Section 504)

North Central Technical College (OH), Case No. 05-97-2038, 11 NDLR ¶ 326 (OCR
Region V 1997) (college may deny participation to student whose conduct has reasonably
foreseeable potential to cause harm to clients in clinical setting that cannot be diminished
with reasonable accommodation)

Board of Education of the City of New York, Case No. 02-97-1125, 12 NDLR ¶ 157 (OCR
Region II 1997) (upholding dismissal of student with mobility impairment who could not
-40-
participate in all clinical requirements of LPN program due to her inability to lift, ambulate
and transfer patients)

Ashland Regional Technology Center (KY), Case No. 07-96-1285, 10 NDLR ¶ 303 (OCR
Region VII 1997) (upholding college’s refusal to allow student to retake failed clinical
course as independent study)

University of California, Los Angeles, Case No. 09-95-2204, 8 NDLR ¶ 314 (OCR Region
IX 1996) (upholding student’s clinic dismissal for poor performance; student’s refusal to
notify field supervisor of disability and need for accommodation exonerated university from
providing same)

Highline Community College (WA), Case No. 10-96-2013 (OCR Region X 1996)
(upholding nursing program requirement that students be mentally and physically capable to
safely participate in clinical rotations)

Blackhawk Technical College (WI), Case No. 05-94-2176 (OCR Region V 1995) (student
whose mobility impairment prevented her from performing essential functions of physical
therapy assistant with reasonable accommodation not otherwise qualified to participate)

Bucks County Area Vocational-Technical School (PA), Case No. 03-94-3007 (OCR
Region III 1995) (upholding student’s dismissal from LPN program based on repeated errors
that threatened patient safety)

University of Pittsburgh (PA), Case No. 03-94-2082 (OCR Region III 1994) (student
teacher’s unprofessional and threatening behavior towards cooperative teachers justified field
placement termination)

Mary Baldwin College (VA), Case No. 03-94-2106 (OCR Region III 1994) (upholding
student’s dismissal from student teaching for poor performance, including misspelling, when
student failed to make use of accommodations to compensate)
XII.
ACCESSIBILITY

Bird v. Lewis & Clark College, 303 F.3d 1015, 24 NDLR ¶ 188 (9th Cir. 2002) (not every
failure to provide total access violates the ADA/Rehabilitation Act; College made good faith
effort to provide program access to overseas program; carrying student does not
automatically violate laws; college has no obligation to make structural changes to buildings
in Australia)

Teti v. Villanova University, No. 01-1720, 25 NDLR 103 (E.D. Penn. 2003) (non-student
patron failed to establish that her injuries accessing the university’s law library were a direct
and proximate cause of her disability)
-41-

Panzardi-Santiago v. University of Puerto Rico, 200 F.Supp.2d 1, 2002 WL 638533 (D.
Puerto Rico 2002) (individual with mobility impairment who never enrolled cannot claim
university’s barriers amount to exclusion based on disability)

Levy v. Mote, 104 F. Supp. 2d 538 (D.Md. 2000) (university did not violate 504/ADA by
renting inaccessible premises to outside organization when it had other available accessible
rooms)

Harvard University, Case No. 01-03-2053, 106 LRP 56945 (OCR 2006) (university failed
to have effective procedure for relocation of campus events; Rehabilitation Act’s reference to
“activities” includes theatre, concerts, lectures, athletic events, student organization meetings,
or any other activity “whether sponsored by a department, an approved student organization,
or a residential house.”)

California State University, Hayward, Case No. 09-04-2016 (OCR 2005) (university’s use
of Braille tape not uniformly positioned on doors and in some cases placed in hazardous
manner denied individuals with visual impairments equal access; university met its equal
access obligation regarding transportation by training drivers, coming to a complete stop at
any stop where an individual was standing and announcing arrival of the bus; university
agreed to post an accessible schedule on website)

University of Wyoming, Case No. 08-05-2020 (OCR 2005) (although one route to computer
lab was not accessible 24 hours a day, university did make available other accessible routes
that provided program accessibility to existing facilities in compliance with the
Rehabilitation Act; although the ADA requires the university to maintain accessible features,
the Act recognizes that isolated or temporary interruptions of access are excusable due to ice
and snow so long as the institution responds within a reasonable timeframe)

Northwestern Illinois University, Case No. 05-04-2085 (OCR Region V 2005) (university
provided more than the required number of accessible spaces in one parking lot due to its
frequency of use, which justified reducing the number of accessible spaces in adjoining lot
which served no students)

University of Southern Indiana, 29 NDLR ¶ 105 (OCR 2004) (OCR demanded that the
university either make the “University Home,” which serves as the President’s residence,
either accessible or refuse to hold events open to the public therein; inaccessible features
included a lack of signage, stairs which denied entry into the building, ramp exceeding
maximum incline level, inaccessible path inside which required entry through the garage and
mudroom, the food preparation area and kitchen, and no accessible bathroom)

Bakersfield College (CA), 29 NDLR ¶ 27 (OCR Region IX 2004) (In addition to
inaccessible features, such as lack of signage to accessible restrooms and inaccessible paths
of travel, OCR found that the college’s culinary arts program denied the student equal access
to its program by failing to provide accessible equipment such as a range at a height to
accommodate students with mobility impairments and sufficient space to maneuver a
wheelchair)
-42-

Appalachian State University (NC), Case No. 11-04-2049, 105 LRP 1570 (OCR Region XI
2004) (OCR faulted the university for failing to provide sufficient accessible restrooms, but
acknowledged that in existing facilities, compliance may be achieved by providing services
in “other convenient, accessible locations”; regarding accessible entrees into existing
facilities, human assistance is permissible; university violated Rehabilitation Act and ADA
by failing to have effective snow removal policy to ensure that snow is not piled in accessible
parking spaces and along paths of travel)

Cabrini College (PA), 29 NDLR ¶ 183 (OCR 2004) (OCR found that the college was in
violation of UFAS standards regulating accessible parking at four of its buildings, including
signage, number and location to buildings)

John Carroll University, 27 NDLR ¶ 287 (OCR 2003) (voluntary resolution: university
agreed to ensure that residents have an accessible bathroom in their hall; to install lock and
door hardware to permit independent access; to remove furniture and boxes denying access
to a health center waiting room, mail room and laundry room; to consult with the City to
ensure effective snow removal; to remind faculty to ensure furniture arrangements do not
hinder classroom access; and to install vending machines that are usable for persons with
mobility impairments)

Ivy Tech State College (IN), Case No. 05-03-2144, 28 NDLR ¶ 30 (OCR Region V 2003)
(dismissing student’s claim that college lacked sufficient accessible parking, adequate
signage and failed to enforce parking violations)

City College of San Francisco (CA), Case No. 09-03-2031, 103 LRP 47137 (OCR Region
IX 2003) (college made appropriate environmental modifications for student with multiple
chemical sensitivities under the law’s program accessibility standards, including relocating
classrooms, locating desk near door; college is not required to fundamentally alter program,
including its environment)

Grand Valley State University (MI), (OCR 1999) (even though the university has 59
accessible housing units and only one student with a mobility impairment, it violated the
ADA by failing to have its new housing structure include a percentage of accessible units)

Wright State University (OH), Case No. 15-99-2101, 18 NDLR ¶ 243 (OCR Region XV
1999) (neither the Rehabilitation Act nor the ADA requires that parking spaces be located on
the shortest path to a building; nor is signage required designating accessible restrooms if
they all are)

Valdosta State University (GA), Case No. 04-98-2120, 16 NDLR ¶ 61 (OCR Region IV
1999) (university failed to provide student with a mobility impairment with accessible chair
and desk nor ensured him an accessible path within the classroom; housing services failed to
provide emergency instructions in an accessible format for a blind student; student run
organizations, including the student government office, school newspaper, university radio
-43-
station, campus activities board and student activities office were improperly located on
second floor with no elevator access)

California Community Colleges, Case No. 09-97-6001 (OCR Region IX 1998) (faulting
system that inadequately responds to needs of blind students, including providing Brailled
textbooks, handouts and exams; over-reliance on readers rather than technology; lack of
accessible computer software; and inadequate preparation for distance education)

Butte-Glenn Community College District (CA), Case No. 09-97-2045 (OCR Region IX
1998) (inaccessible leased space offering yoga class violated Section 504/ADA)

Central Washington University (WA), Case No. 10-97-2074 (OCR Region X 1998)
(housing unit which lacks conventional stove violates Section 504/ADA when provided in
other units)

Arizona State University, 15 NDLR ¶ 187 (OCR Region VIII 1998) (university which
provides ample accessible pathways to campus complies with Section 504/ADA even though
footbridge is inaccessible to wheelchair users)

California State University - Los Angeles, Case No. 09-97-2002 (OCR Region IX 1997)
(university must provide equal access to all its services, including Internet; accommodations
must be part of comprehensive plan; when purchasing new equipment institution must
consider impact on users with disabilities)

Morehouse College (GA), Case No. 04-97-2013 (OCR Region IV 1997) (college obligated
to provide accessible laundry facilities or person to assist student with doing laundry)

San Francisco State University (CA), Case No. 09-97-2004, 11 NDLR ¶ 122 (OCR Region
IX 1997) (faulting university for failing to provide accessible transportation on geology field
trips)

Letter to Harkin, 10 NDLR ¶ 240 (DOJ 1996) (ADA requires web pages to be accessible
for persons with visual impairments or provide information in alternate manner)

University of Oklahoma, Case Nos. 06-96-2002; 06-96-2068 (OCR Region VI 1996)
(number and location of accessible seats in football stadium inadequate)

Dean College (MA), Case No. 01-96-2022 (OCR Region I 1996) (college properly
accommodated student diagnosed with multiple chemical sensitivity by relocating classes
and activities and notifying her when adverse conditions present)

Lane Community College (OR), Case No. 10-95-2075 (OCR Region X 1996) (college
unlawfully failed to maintain path of entry for classes during construction)

Stetson University (FL), Case No. 04-95-2168, 8 NDLR ¶ 150 (OCR Region IV 1995)
(university had adequate number of TDDs in light of student need)
-44-
XIII. HARASSMENT

Garcia v. State University of New York Health Sciences Center at Brooklyn, WL
1469551, 19 NDLR ¶ 57 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) aff’d on other grounds, 280 F.3d 98, 22 NDLR ¶
30 (2nd Cir. 2001) (evidence of isolated rude comments are insufficient basis for claim of
disability discrimination)

Rothman v. Emory University, 123 F.3d 446, 10 NDLR ¶ 271 (7th Cir. 1997) (75 meetings
with student over course of three years demonstrated concern for student rather than hostile
educational environment)

Pell v. Trustees of Columbia University, 1998 WL 19989, 11 NDLR ¶ 322 (S.D.N.Y.
1998) (upholding right of student with learning disability to file claim for damages on basis
that faculty’s comments created hostile educational environment)

Rockford College (IL), 27 NDLR ¶ 61, Case No. 05-03-2015 (OCR Region V 2003)
(college properly responded to student’s harassment claims by moving him to private room)

Austin Peay State University (TN), 22 NDLR ¶ 237, Case No. 04-01-2090 (OCR Region
IV 2001) (no discrimination found although comments made by faculty were perceived to be
demeaning by the student; insufficient to violate the ADA/Rehabilitation Act)

Wenatchee Valley College (WA), Case No. 10-99-2013 (OCR Region X 2000) (rejecting
student’s claim that faculty harassed him for using service dog; requests made to avoid
disruption found reasonable)

University of Massachusetts, Case No. 01-97-2095, 12 NDLR ¶ 315 (OCR Region I 1998)
(professor’s suggestion that student using laptop computer sit up front so as not to distract
others did not constitute harassment)
XIV. COUNSELING

Cosumnes River College (CA), Case No. 09-96-2002 (OCR Region IX 1996) (college
permitted to recommend withdrawal to student who missed more than half her classes and
was in jeopardy of failing)
XV.

HOUSING
Kuchmas v. Towson University, 553 F.Supp.2d 556, 37 NDLR 31 (D. Md. 2008) (Fair
Housing Act’s two year statute of limitations runs from the design and construction stages;
student’s claim against architectural firm is time-barred; nor can an architectural firm be
liable for failing to accommodate resident; architectural firms are not subject to the ADA as
they do not “own, lease or operate” but the statute of limitations against the management
-45-
company only begins to run from the time the unit is leased under the FHA, ADA and
Rehabilitation Act)

Kenny v. Loyola University, 2003 WL 503119 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (even though student did not
use a wheelchair, her alleged mobility impairments may have justified accessible features
such as grab bars, shower with seat and hand-shower, and lever style faucets)

Barker v. Emory University, 103 LRP 29658 (N.D.Ga. 2003) (District Court refuses to
dismiss claims brought pursuant to Fair Housing Act against university architect who
designed housing complex and builder of same serving student with mobility impairment)

Harvard University, Case No. 01-03-2053, 106 LRP 56945 (OCR Region I 2006)
(university cannot meet its obligation to provide integrated access by offering to bring meals
to student or pay for student to eat in local restaurants during breaks; dining hall must be
accessible)

Lander University, Case No. 11-06-2005, 34 NDLR 152 (OCR DC Office 2006)
(university’s practice of charging higher rate for disability required private room violates
Rehabilitation Act and ADA)

Oklahoma State University, 106 LRP 57027, Case No. 07-04-2080 (OCR Region VII
2006) (university was justified in denying request by student with learning disabilities to
reduce course load below 12 credits and maintain housing since the need was not disabilityrelated but based on the student’s desire to socialize more)

Monmouth College (IL), 26 NDLR ¶ 261, Case No. 05-03-2012 (OCR Region V 2003)
(student’s documentation was insufficient to establish that her asthmatic condition rose to be
a disabling condition; college justified in charging fee for use of air conditioner)

Valparaiso University (IN), Case No. 05-99-2247 (OCR Region V 2000) (upholding
university charge for single room given student, not as an accommodation for a sleep
disorder, but to lessen conflict student had with other roommate; documentation did not
suggest single room needed)

Valdosta State University (GA), Case No. 04-00-2086 (OCR Region IV 2000) (university
under no obligation to bump nondisabled student to afford student with disability access to
housing)
XVI. CONFIDENTIALITY

Rothman v. Emory University, 123 F.3d 446, 10 NDLR ¶ 271 (7th Cir. 1997) (dean’s
disclosure to board of bar examiners that student has epilepsy did not violate Section
504/ADA as statement contained no evidence of animus)
-46-

Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Science, 26 NDLR 186, Case No. 01-022039 (OCR Region I 2003) (insufficient evidence existed to establish that college required as
opposed to suggested that student disclose her AIDS condition to instructors)
XVII. RETALIATION

Mershon v. St. Louis University, 442 F.3d 1069, 32 NDLR 77 (8th Cir. 2006) (university
did not retaliate against student by barring him from campus after learning that he had
allegedly told OCR he wanted to put a bullet to professor’s head)

Shepard v. Irving, 77 Fed. Appx. 615, 26 NDLR ¶ 204 (4th Cir. 2003) (opinion unpublished)
(student with learning disability has right to trial on question whether instructor retaliated by
giving her an “F” and filing plagiarism charge following her complaint to disability resource
center that instructor refused to grant additional time to complete assignment)

Johnson v. Oklahoma ex rel. University of Oklahoma Bd. of Regents, 229 F.3d 1163
(10th Cir. 2000) (unpublished opinion) (former student with multiple sclerosis failed to
establish that her dismissal from physician’s associate program was in retaliation for her
having filed a complaint of discrimination for refusing to permit her to participate in
emergency medicine clinical rotation; university failed student for excessive absenteeism in
one clinical rotation, lack of medical knowledge and inability to perform in another and
cheating)

Amir v. Saint Louis University, 184 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 1999) (medical student’s good faith
belief that professor coerced him to seek hospitalization for his obsessive compulsive
disorder and then refused to readmit him to complete psychiatry clinical rotation is prima
facie evidence of retaliation sufficient to be heard by a jury)

Yount v. Regent University, Inc., No.08-8011, 109 LRP 22861 (D. AZ 2009) (former
student failed to establish evidence of pretext when university established that the
university’s actions were “sudden unanticipated changes to an otherwise positive history at
the institution” )

LaMarca v. Capella University, No. 05-00642 (C.D. Calif. 2007) (university’s decision to
bar student from participation in on-line course work was justified given his violation of the
conduct code and was not done in retaliation for student’s advocacy on behalf of students
with disabilities)

Stopka v. Medical University of South Carolina, 35 NDLR 67 (S.C. 2007) (although
medical school denied requested accommodation (handheld scanner), it provided many other
accommodations; school did not retaliate against resident by dismissing him for failing to
safely perform patient care)

Melendez v. Monroe College, 33 NDLR 168 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (college did not retaliate
against blind student by dismissing him for belligerent conduct in violation of conduct code)
-47-

Bayon v. State University of New York, No. 98-0578, 104 LRP 14381, 106 LRP 24596
(W.D.N.Y. 2006) (upholding jury verdict in favor of former student, but granting university’s
request for a new trial unless plaintiff agreed to reduce award of $601,000 to $100,000 which
court found “shocked the judicial conscience” )

Capella University (MN), 34 NDLR 25Case No. 05-05-2431 (OCR Region V 2006)
(university did not retaliate against doctoral student for filing a claim with the state human
rights commission; university discharged student for academic dishonesty after she
plagiarized material in three different courses within one year)

College of DuPage, 30 NDLR 260, Case No. 05-94-2050 (OCR 2005) (professor did not
retaliate, but attempted to accommodate student by suggesting she take a course as
independent study)

Minnesota State University-Moorhead, 104 LRP 50453, Case No. 05-04-2041 (OCR
Region V 2004) (OCR did not retaliate against nondisabled student by discontinuing her
enrollment in three courses for refusing to take a necessary prerequisite course, rather than in
retaliation against her husband who had advocated on behalf of students with disabilities but
who had been dismissed from the faculty)

Rockford College (IL), 27 NDLR ¶ 61, Case No. 05-03-2015 (OCR Region V 2003)
(although student had complained about harassment, college was justified in expelling him
for falsifying his transcript)

Webster University (MO), 27 NDLR ¶ 255, Case No. 07-03-2032 (OCR Region VII 2003)
(although student engaged in protected activity by filing OCR complaint, university justified
in dismissing him from graduate program when he failed to satisfy enrollment criteria)

Charles Stewart Mott Community College (MI), Case No. 15-00-2039 (OCR Region XV
2000) (college did not retaliate against student by informing faculty not to permit personal
aide to administer or proctor student's exams)

University of Northern Iowa (IA), Case No. 07-99-2255, 19 NDLR ¶ 89 (OCR Region VII
2000) (thesis committee member's resignation was legitimately based on student's inability to
distance herself from her subjects rather than in retaliation for disclosing her bipolar
disorder)

University of New Mexico (NM), Case No. 08-99-2139 (OCR Region VIII 1999) (rejecting
claim that faculty’s filing of harassment charges against student was in retaliation for his
prior OCR complaint; faculty had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to report conduct to
campus police)

Life Chiropractic College West (CA), Case No. 09-98-2129, 14 NDLR ¶ 257 (OCR Region
IX 1998) (college’s use of assessment information provided to secure accommodations as a
-48-
basis for dismissal [here I.Q. testing] was retaliatory against student for exercising rights
secured under Section 504)

Central Washington University (WA), Case No. 10-97-2074 (OCR Region X 1998)
(housing director who telephoned student in response to student’s editorial regarding campus
accessibility did not retaliate)
XVIII.
DISMISSAL

Powell v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, No. 02-9385, 104 LRP 15878 (2nd Cir.
2004) (medical school more than accommodated student by providing her with tutors,
excusing honor code violation, permitting her matriculation without paying tuition and
multiple opportunities to remediate failing coursework; medical school is not obligated to
fundamentally alter its curriculum by permitting student to continue in program despite
failing national board exam)

Stern v. University of Osteopathic Medicine and Health Sciences, WL 1133837 (8th Cir.
2000) (upholding school’s dismissal of student diagnosed with a learning disability for whom
it had provided accommodations, even though student was unable to succeed)

Zukle v. Regents of the University of California, 166 F. 3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999) (upholding
medical school’s dismissal of student who, despite provision of accommodations customarily
given to students with learning disabilities, was unable to meet school’s minimum
requirements)

Amir v. Saint Louis University, 184 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 1999) (dismissing former student’s
claim that medical school dismissed him based on his diagnosis of obsessive compulsive
disorder when his dismissal did not immediately follow his return from hospitalization and
his failure to link evidence of ill motive based on disability rather than poor performance)

Kaltenberger v. Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine, 162 F. 3d 432, 14 NDLR ¶ 71 (6th
Cir. 1998) (upholding dismissal of student diagnosed with ADHD who failed out a second
time, despite reasonable accommodations; court defers to professional, reasoned judgment of
academicians on issue of what is reasonable)

McGuinness v. University of New Mexico School of Medicine, 162 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir.
1998) (even if student’s anxiety disorder was disabling, his request to advance to second year
despite marginal performance was unreasonable)

Haight v. Hawaii Pacific University, 10 NDLR ¶ 158 (9th Cir. 1997) (rejecting argument
that university needed to gather disability-related information before dismissing student)

Chen v. University of Washington, 108 LRP 13809 (W.D. Wash. 2008) (upholding
dismissal of student with visual impairment who failed to maintain required GPA; no
evidence that university failed to accommodate)
-49-

Grantham v. Moffett, No. 95-30617 (5th Cir. 1996) (upholding $181,000 verdict against
university in favor of deaf student who was denied opportunity to student teach and
dismissed from program)

Murphy v. Franklin Pierce Law Center, 56 F.3d 59, 6 NDLR ¶ 331 (1st Cir. 1995) (law
school reasonably accommodated student’s known disabilities; failure to fully accommodate
due to student’s failure to disclose)

Leacock v. Temple University Sch. of Medicine, 14 NDLR ¶ 30 (E.D. Penn. 1998) (school
that dismissed student without knowledge of or reason to believe that she had learning
disability did not violate Section 504 and had no duty to reconsider decision when provided
with evidence of disability)

Herdman v. University of Illinois, 13 NDLR ¶ 289 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (upholding student’s
dismissal from college of medicine when student produced no evidence between alleged
disability [back pain] and continual failure to meet academic standards; college provided
numerous leaves of absence, frequent "study and review" periods and extra time during
exams)

University of Illinois at Chicago, Case No. 05-04-2033 (OCR 2005) (OCR investigated
complaint under standard of review of comparability of process after student had sought
same relief through university’s grievance procedures; medical school’s decision to dismiss
student diagnosed with Asperger’s Disorder was not based on a failure to accommodate
when student failed to identify himself as disabled until his dismissal; evidence established
that medical school provided remedial efforts before dismissal; student failed to meet
technical standards of possessing adequate clinical and communication skills to perform
competently)

University of Cincinnati (OH), Case No. 15-04-2012, 29 NDLR ¶ 77 (OCR Region XV
2004) (medical school did not violate the Rehabilitation Act by dismissing student from its
educational program after he failed medical boards on four occasions, even though he was
first diagnosed with ADD after the third attempt; OCR rejects student’s assertion that
postsecondary institution has duty to notify prospective student of need for evaluation)

Southwestern Community College District (CA), 29 NDLR 210, Case No. 09-04-2074
(OCR Region IX 2004) (OCR upheld the college’s decision to dismiss a student with a
learning disability from its dental hygiene program for failing to maintain its required GPA;
student was not able to establish that she had given accommodation form to particular
instructor who denied receiving it; the college’s due process procedures were consistent with
the ADA/Rehabilitation Act)

Texas Woman's University (TX), 19 NDLR ¶ 129, Case No. 06-00-2038 (OCR Region VI
2000) (upholding university's dismissal of student with learning disability who failed to
request accommodations until after she had received two C's, disqualifying her for continued
enrollment)
-50-

University of Montevallo (AL), Case No. 04-99-2004 (OCR Region IV 1999) (university
which had no knowledge of student’s disability did not violate Section 504 or the ADA when
it dismissed her from its elementary education program due to inappropriate conduct)

Nashville State Technical Institute (TN), Case No. 04-99-2007, 16 NDLR ¶ 201 (OCR
Region IV 1999) (institution did not violate Section 504 or the ADA when it dismissed
student diagnosed with bipolar disorder from occupational therapy program after she
decompensated while treating a patient and for poor performance; student rejected all
proffered academic adjustments for fear of disclosure)

Life Chiropractic College West (CA), Case No. 09-98-2129, 14 NDLR ¶ 257 (OCR Region
IX 1998) (college’s dismissal of student based on results of I.Q. testing violated Section 504
and the ADA)

North Central Technical College (OH), Case No. 05-97-2038, 11 NDLR ¶ 326 (OCR
Region V 1997) (student whose behavior interferes with others’ learning or presents
unreasonable risk to health and safety of self or others is not otherwise qualified under
Section 504/ADA)

Board of Education of the City of New York, Case No. 02-97-1125, 12 NDLR ¶ 157 (OCR
Region II 1997) (upholding dismissal of student with mobility impairment who could not
participate in all clinical requirements due to her inability to lift, ambulate and transfer
patients)

Tennessee Bd. of Regents, Case No. 04-96-2133 (OCR Region IV 1996) (upholding truck
driving program’s dismissal of student with hearing loss who repeatedly failed to follow
directions despite working hearing aids)
XIX. READMISSION

Rosenthal v. Webster University, 230 F.3d 1363, 102 LRP 33039 (8th Cir. 2000)
(upholding suspension and imposition of conditions on student with bipolar disorder; no
evidence that university knew student had a disability before suspending him)

Amir v. Saint Louis University, 184 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 1999) (upholding imposition of
conditions including evidence of treatment and stability before readmitting student with
obsessive compulsive disorder following hospitalization)

Kaltenberger v. Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine, 162 F. 3d 432, 14 NDLR ¶ 71 (6th
Cir. 1998) (upholding right of college to conditionally readmit student and provide her with
accommodations with no right to internally challenge subsequent dismissal)

Doe v. Vanderbilt University, 132 F.3d 32 (6th Cir. 1997) (opinion unpublished) (upholding
denial of readmission of student with bipolar disorder who produced no evidence that other
-51-
less qualified nondisabled students were readmitted)

Scott v. Western State University College of Law, No. 96-56088 (9th Cir. 1997) (upholding
denial of readmission when school was unaware of student’s disability)

Garcia v. State University of New York Health Sciences Center at Brooklyn, 2000 WL
1469551, 19 NDLR ¶ 57 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) aff’d on other grounds, 280 F.3d 98, 22 NDLR ¶
30 (2d Cir. 2001) (upholding medical school's decision denying readmission to student after
being diagnosed with ADD and a learning disability based on his refusal to accept
nondiscriminatory conditions including repetition of coursework)

Trznadel v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, 103 LRP 26884 (W.D. Mich. 2003) (law
school did not dismiss student but entered into voluntary agreement to withdraw with right of
readmission based on fulfilling conditions, including written acknowledgment from mental
health professional or physician, if the latter possesses the education and training to "make
the finding that your anger and behavior were due entirely to a physical problem"; conditions
she has yet to fulfill, which did not violate the ADA or Rehabilitation Act)

Allison v. Howard University, 209 F.Supp.2d 55 (D.D.C. 2002) (even if former law student
could prove that he is disabled and otherwise qualified, he failed to offer any significant
probative evidence that university’s refusal to readmit him was due solely to his alleged
disability)

Carlin v. Trustees of Boston University, 907 F. Supp. 509, 7 NDLR ¶ 266 (D. Mass. 1995)
(questioning university’s denial of student’s readmission after taking psychiatric leave when
records suggested she had been qualified)

Hash v. University of Kentucky, 138 S.W.2d 123, 28 NDLR ¶ 140 (Ky. App. 2004) (law
school was justified in denying readmission to former student with depression whose
application contained references that suggested he may present a danger to himself or others;
law school was willing to reconsider its decision after conferring with student’s physicians
and conducting its own assessment (case brought under State law))

University of Akron (OH), Case No. 15-03-2008, 103 LRP 32887 (OCR Region XV 2003)
(law school did not discriminate against student based on his ADHD by failing to consider
his condition when university never considers mitigating measures when any student fails to
achieve a 1.8 GPA; student’s likelihood of ultimately passing bar examination greatly
diminished)

Suffolk University (MA), Case No. 01-01-2042, 22 NDLR ¶ 238 (OCR Region I 2001)
(upholding law school’s decision to place student on academic probation and repeat first year
curriculum; he only disclosed panic/anxiety disorder at time of dismissal and was properly
accommodated for his existing ADHD)
-52-

Seattle University (WA), Case No. 10-99-2003, 16 NDLR ¶ 236 (OCR Region X 1999)
(upholding condition of readmission that nursing student retake course she had previously
passed as consistent with program’s treatment of similarly situated nondisabled students

Villanova University (PA), Case No. 03-98-2077, 16 NDLR ¶ 170 (OCR Region III 1999)
(law school justified in denying readmission to student who was later diagnosed as having a
learning disability as her performance did not improve during second semester despite
individualized tutoring and requested accommodations were not reasonable)

Claremont Graduate University (CA), Case No. 09-97-2168, 15 NDLR ¶ 217 (OCR
Region IX 1998) (upholding university’s refusal to readmit student diagnosed with
psychological impairment to Ph.D. English program; committee members did not know
nature of candidate’s disability and did not discuss disability status; grades and writing
performance were below standard)

New England School of Law (MA), Case No. 01-96-2088 (OCR Region I 1997) (upholding
requirement that student repeat entire first year as condition of readmission)

Chapman University at McChord Air Force Base (WA), Case No. 10-95-2077 (OCR
Region X 1996) (counseling program reasonably denied readmission to student whose
previous behavior was inconsistent with profession)

Boston University (MA), Case No. 01-96-2032 (OCR Region I 1996) (university justified in
denying readmission to former addict who forged prescriptions)

University of Chicago (IL), Case No. 05-96-2051, 9 NDLR ¶ 245 (OCR Region V 1996)
(college did not discriminate against students with psychiatric disorders by requiring proof of
readiness for readmission as required of all students on leave)
XX.
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

Shepard v. Irving, 77 Fed. Appx. 615, 26 NDLR ¶ 204 (4th Cir. 2003) (opinion unpublished)
(student with learning disability has right to trial on question whether university
discriminated against her based on disability by failing to permit her to be represented by
lawyer or mother before Honor Committee, hearing plagiarism charge)

Guckenberger v. Trustees of Boston University, 8 F.Supp.2d 82, 13 NDLR ¶ 59 (D. Mass.
1998) (questioning procedures that were not publicized and required subordinates to override
presidential determinations; but no private right of action)

Harvard University, Case No. 01-07-2035, 108 LRP 52274 (OCR Region I 2008) (finding
fault with university’s grievance procedures and delay in investigating grievance; procedures
must (1) provide notice to students and employees that describes where and with whom to
file; (2) address full range of discriminatory conduct; (3) provide an adequate, reliable and
impartial investigation, including the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence; (4)
-53-
designate reasonably prompt timeframes; and (5) notify parties of outcome; informal
resolution as a step is permissible)

Pacific Union College, Case No. 09-06-2073, 106 LRP 60974 (OCR Region IX 2006)
(college’s procedures violated 504: publications were inconsistent; cannot require informal
process as precondition to formal grievance; must consider nature of disability and whether
or not accommodations were provided; investigator must be trained on disability, 504
obligations and legal standards)

Loyola University Chicago, Case No. 05-05-2139, 33 NDLR 256 (OCR Region V 2006)
(university’s procedures were inadequate because investigation was not adequate, reliable
and impartial; inadequate notice to grievant of outcome; lack of reasonably prompt and
specified timeframes; inability to present witnesses and evidence; inability to investigate
without mandatory mediation through accused party; failure to include right of appeal)

Fresno City College (CA), 105 LRP 12379, Case No. 09-03-2142 (OCR Region IX 2004)
(college provided adequate notice of its grievance procedures through its course catalog and
the web and student had filed a complaint)

Southern Oregon University (OR), Case No. 10-99-2182 (OCR Region X 2000) (finding
university’s procedures which are posted on web and published in catalog and disability
services office in compliance with Section 504)

Community College of Southern Nevada, Case No. 10-99-2007 (OCR Region X 2000)
(faulting college's grievance procedure which did not clearly convey that it is applicable to
claims of disability discrimination)

University of California, Santa Cruz, Case No. 09-97-2169 (OCR Region IX 1999)
(faulting procedure that permitted disability service provider involved in direct service
investigating complaint)

Lake Oswego College (OR), Case No. 10-97-2028 14 NDLR ¶ 102 (OCR Region X 1998)
(grievance procedures need to address harassment complaints, require notice, fair, reliable
and impartial investigation, opportunity to present evidence, reasonable timeframes, notice to
parties of disposition and appropriate corrective action)

National University (CA), Case No. 09-96-2152 (OCR Region IX 1997) (improperly
routing claim of unlawful discrimination in grading as grade appeal rather than Section
504/ADA violation)

Dartmouth College (NH), Case No. 01-96-2072 (OCR Region I 1997) (upholding
procedures requiring student to appeal course substitution denial with office of equal
opportunity)

University of Oregon, Case No. 10-96-2012 (OCR Region X 1996) (procedures must be
applicable to nonstudents)
-54-

Cabrillo College (CA), Case No. 09-95-2166-I, 8 NDLR ¶ 413 (OCR Region IX 1996)
(procedures may not obligate person to confront person who allegedly discriminated against
him/her)

Chabot College (CA), Case No. 09-95-2149 (OCR Region IX 1996) (grievance procedures
failed to include required appeal process)

Solano Community College District (CA), Case No. 09-94-2064-I (OCR Region IX 1995)
(procedures inadequate which did not allow grade change even when accommodations
unlawfully denied)
XXI. FINANCIAL AID

Johnson v. Louisiana State, 2008 WL 1859849 (5th Cir. 2008) (unpublished opinion)
(university did not discriminate against student by denying financial aid; student’s poor
academic performance rather than his disability, was the basis of the denial; providing
financial aid would not be a reasonable accommodation for poor academic performance,
especially when unrelated to his disability)

Riverside Community College (CA), 31 NDLR 102, Case No. 09-05-2011 (OCR 2005)
(college did not discriminate against student by failing to award him maximum loan funds in
light of his stated inability to engage in work study)

Edmonds Community College (WA), Case No. 10-02-2031 (OCR Region X 2000)
(establishing that college provided significant assistance to student to secure work-study
participation comparable to nondisabled students; ADA/504 do not guarantee placement)

University of Hawaii (HI), Case No. 10-98-2010 (OCR Region X 1998) (university decision
denying student's request to convert workstudy award to student loan did not violate ADA or
§504 when student had history of defaulting on repaying student loans and did not establish
an inability to work)
XXII. LICENSURE

Jenkins v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, No. 08-5371, 38 NDLR 156 (6th Cir. 2009)
(in light of Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008, court remands case to
district court to determine if candidate’s reading disorder substantially limits a major life
activity medical)

Varad v. Barshak, 261 F.Supp.2d 47, 26 NDLR 32 (D.Mass. 2003) aff’d (March 30, 2004,
1st Cir.) (unpublished opinion) (Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners did not violate Title
II of the ADA by failing to accommodate student’s alleged handwriting disorder; student
failed to seek accommodations in timely manner, as prescribed by Board policy)
-55-

Clement v. Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, 125 F.3d 847 (4th Cir. 1997) (unpublished
opinion) (candidate with learning disability failed to meet burden of proof that had the board
of examiners accommodated her she would have passed the exam; she failed exam six times
despite increased accommodations each time)

Cox v. Alabama State Bar, 330 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 28 NDLR ¶ 271 (M.D.Ala. 2004)
(applicant diagnosed with ADD and dyslexia failed to establish likelihood of success on
claim that examiners who provided quiet testing area, access to word processor with spell
checker and time and one half violated the ADA or Rehabilitation Act; expert opinions
conflicted; fact that applicant received double time in law school and LSATs is not
dispositive)

Hunt v. Meharry Medical College, No. 98-7193, 18 NDLR ¶ 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (even
though medical school does not administer licensing exam, as it bases student's right to
continue in program on exam results, it may be held responsible for illegal conduct of
medical board if proven)

Jacobsen v. Tillmann, 13 NDLR ¶ 110 (D. Minn. 1998) (state has right to set objectively
measurable teaching criteria; waiving portions of test to accommodate learning disability not
required)

White v. Creighton University, 106 LRP 70155 (D. Neb. 2006) (university faculty and
administrators do not “operate” places of public accommodation under Title III of the ADA
and therefore may not be sued individually)

Florida Board of Bar Examiners Re: S.G., 707 So.2d 323, 12 NDLR ¶ 42 (Fla. 1998)
(ADA may require modification of test administration; it does not require alteration of way
test is scored)

O’Brien v. Virginia Board of Bar Examiners, 12 NDLR ¶ 189 (E.D. Va. 1998) (upholding
right to secure medical release and ask questions about candidate’s present mental health
status to ensure ability to practice law)

In Re Petition and Questionnaire for Admission to the Rhode Island Bar, No. 93-246M.P., 8 NDLR ¶ 409 (R.I. 1997) (limiting bar application questions to current behavior rather
than existence of disability)

Massachusetts Dep’t of Educ., 105 LRP 1515, Case No. 01-04-1098 (OCR 2005)
(upholding State department of education’s refusal to authorize use of a reader for a
candidate sitting for teacher licensure exam when not supported by documentation; other
accommodations such as breaks and extended time were granted)

Minnesota Bd. of Teaching, Case No. 05-97-4018 (OCR Region V 1998) (Board under no
obligation to waive portions of teacher examination that measures minimum reading, writing
and mathematics skills as such would fundamental alter exam; student received all
-56-
accommodations requested and offered no alternative nondiscriminatory means of measuring
skills)

Letter to Thompson, 9 NDLR ¶ 352 (DOJ 1996) (licensing boards may determine if
applicants or current licensees are engaging in illegal drug use)
XXIII. LIABILITY

Powell v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, No. 02-9385, 104 LRP 15878 (2nd Cir.
2004) (monetary relief is not available to private individuals under Title III of the ADA, only
injunctive relief; to obtain monetary damages under Title II of the ADA, plaintiff must
establish that entity acted with ill will or discriminatory malice stemming from his/her
disability; to obtain monetary damages under the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiff must establish
that entity acted with “deliberate indifference”)

Bevington v. Ohio University, No. 03-4031, 27 NDLR 275 (6th Cir. 2004) (opinion
unpublished) (neither the ADA nor Section 504 recognizes claims against individuals)

Shepard v. Irving, 77 Fed. Appx. 615, 26 NDLR ¶ 204 (4th Cir. 2003) (opinion unpublished)
(holding that university and employees in their official capacity are immune from ADA
damages claim brought by student based on sovereign immunity; however, university waived
immunity by accepting federal funds under Rehabilitation Act permitting claim for damages
and injunctive relief to go forward against university and personnel in their official
capacities; [student alleges that instructor retaliated by giving her an “F” and filing
plagiarism charge after she complained to disability resource center about instructor’s refusal
to permit more time to complete assignment])

Parr v. Middle Tennessee State University, No. 02-5925, 103 LRP 21035 (6th Cir. 2003)
(dismissing graduate student’s Title II ADA claim for damages premised on equal protection
grounds, based on Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity)

Louisiana v. Department of Educ., 330 F.3d 362, 25 NDLR ¶ 336 (5th Cir. 2003)
(dismissing student’s Rehabilitation Act claim against the Department of Education and
university for damages based on Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity; States must
knowingly waive immunity when accepting federal funds)

Bowers v. NCAA, 296 F.3d 284 (3rd Cir. 2003) (various universities stopped recruiting
student with LD who failed to fulfill then-existing NCAA core course requirements; student
sued only NCAA and Temple University; Court holds that ADA contains no remedy
authorizing Temple University to seek right of contribution from other universities)

Emerson v. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 284 (3rd Cir. 2002) (Title III of the ADA does not
countenance claims against individuals, unless they own, operate or lease place of public
accommodation; Rehabilitation Act only applies to recipients of federal financial assistance
[here, faculty not subject to individual liability])
-57-

Carten v. Kent State University, 78 Fed. Appx. 499, 27 NDLR ¶ 8 (6th Cir. 2003)
(dismissing graduate student’s ADA claim for damages based on Eleventh Amendment
Sovereign Immunity but authorizing suit for injunctive relief brought pursuant to the
Rehabilitation Act)

Garcia v. State University of New York Health Sciences Center at Brooklyn, 280 F.3d
98, 22 NDLR ¶ 30 (2nd Cir. 2001) (dismissing former medical student’s suit for monetary
damages against administrators and faculty under Title II of the ADA for failing to show that
action taken [requiring as a condition of readmission that student repeat coursework] was
result of discriminatory animus or ill will due to disability)

Rittenhouse v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, No. 07-0763, 108 LRP
33110 (S.D. Ill. 2008) (punitive damages are not available under the Rehabilitation Act)

O’Connor v. The College of Saint Rose, 31 NDLR ¶ 153 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (Title III of the
ADA does not authorize monetary damages; the Rehabilitation Act recognizes the
availability of damage awards upon a showing of deliberate indifference to a student’s rights)

Bayon v. State University of New York, No. 98-0578, 104 LRP 14381 (W.D.N.Y. 2004)
(failure to accommodate cannot result in monetary damages under Title II of the ADA
without evidence of discriminatory animus or ill will due to disability, conduct based on
irrational prejudice or wholly lacking a legitimate governmental interest [here claiming a
refusal to grant an incomplete, retroactive withdrawal from courses, ability to retake an exam
and more time on exams])

Spychalsky v. Sullivan, 103 LRP 40719 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (student denied relief; monetary
damages unavailable against private institutions (here St. John’s University Law School) for
violations of Title III of the ADA)

Denmeade v. King, 2002 WL 31018148, 103 LRP 24405 (W.D.N.Y. 2002) (Eleventh
Amendment bars monetary relief against university for allegedly failing to remove barriers
for students who use wheelchairs, absent showing that such failure was willful and driven by
discriminatory animus against individuals with disabilities; however, students’ claim for
injunctive relief seeking barrier removal may go forward under Rehabilitation Act;
graduation does not necessarily moot claim)

Coddington v. Adelphi University, 45 F.Supp.2d 211 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (individual
professors may not be held liable for discrimination under the ADA or Section 504;
institution is proper defendant)

Filardi v. Loyola University, 12 NDLR ¶ 152 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (punitive damages are
available under Section 504 but not Title III of the ADA)

Pell v. Trustees of Columbia University, 1998 WL 19989, 11 NDLR ¶ 322 (S.D.N.Y.
1998) (Section 504 does not authorize claims against individuals)
-58-

Smith v. University of the State of N.Y., 1997 WL 800882, 11 NDLR ¶ 234 (W.D.N.Y.
1997) (dismissing claims brought against individuals, including professor, under Title II of
the ADA; but permitting claim of retaliation pursuant to ADA’s Title V against such
individuals; professor enjoys no qualified immunity)

Ostrach v. Regents of the University of California, 957 F. Supp. 196, 9 NDLR ¶ 254 (E.D.
Cal. 1997) (ADA only recognizes claim for damages brought against individuals, including
punitive damages, on basis of retaliation)
XXIV.
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 121 S.Ct. 1879 (2001) (providing cart does not fundamentally
alter nature of golf and is necessary for player with mobility impairment)

Hirsch v. Nova Southeastern University, No. 06-15011, 37 NDLR 183 (11th Cir. 2008)
(rejecting former dental student’s discovery challenges as irrelevant in light of jury verdict
that his ADHD did not constitute a disability)

McInerney v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 35 NDLR 218 (2d Cir. 2007) (Ph.D.
candidate with brain damage was not required to exhaust administrative remedies with the
EEOC before filing suit)

Parker v. Universidad de Puerto Rico, No. 99-1456 (1st Cir. 2000) (citizen attending
university event injured due to inaccessible features may sue under ADA)

National Coalition for Students with Disabilities Education and Legal Defense Fund v.
Allen, 13 NDLR ¶ 27 (4th Cir. 1998) (disability services offices in public institutions when
deemed “offices” under state law have affirmative obligation to assist students with
disabilities in registering to vote)

Allegheny Health, Educ. & Research Foundation v. Kirkland, 30 NDLR 13 (Bankr.
W.D.Penn. 2005) (Bankruptcy court refuses to discharge student loans owed to medical
school based on allegation that her dismissal was the result of the school failure to
accommodate her ADD; her condition did not substantially limit her ability to learn when
compared with the average person in the general population)

Chira v. Columbia University, 103 LRP 51851 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (dismissing claims based
on failure to provide adequate housing as beyond statute of limitations)

Wasser v. New York State Office of Vocational Educational Services for Individuals
with Disabilities, 103 LRP 45947 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (Rehabilitation Act claims of
discrimination are based on treatment of individuals with disabilities vis a vis nondisabled
persons; discrimination claims asserting different treatment based on severity of disability
not actionable)
-59-

Watanabe v. Loyola University of Chicago, 2000 WL 876983 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (university's
placement office may be considered an employment agency under ADA; refusing to dismiss
student's claim that center refused to refer her for job placements based on disability)

Hunt v. Meharry Medical College, No. 98-7193, 18 NDLR ¶ 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (no
obligation to provide notice before filing claim under Title III of the ADA)

Leacock v. Temple University Sch. of Medicine, 14 NDLR ¶ 30 (E.D. Penn. 1998) (state’s
two year statute of limitations bars former medical student’s Section 504 claim for unlawful
dismissal)

DeAngelis v. Widener University School of Law, 11 NDLR ¶ 272 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (two
year state statute of limitations bars student’s claim that law school’s failure to provide
comparable housing and tape recorded classes violated ADA and Section 504)

Letter to Mercer University, 108 LRP 10898, No. 04-07-2063 (OCR Region IV 2007)
(postsecondary institutions may impose reasonable rules regarding the control of service
animals, where they eliminate and where they may be left unattended so long as the
restrictions do not have the effect of discriminating, denying or limiting access and may
require documentation or other information to show that a service animal has been
individually trained to do work or perform tasks but may not require that the animal be
trained or certified by any particular organization or in any particular method; may require
documentation regarding the student’s disability, the service animal’s function, and the nexus
between the disability and the service animal’s function; and may require documentation of
current vaccination, a veterinary health certificate and license as required by law)

Earlham College, 33 NDLR 26 (OCR Region VI 2006) (OCR declined to investigate
student’s claim of disability-based discrimination since she was enrolled in a Masters of
Divinity program in which faculty must decide her fitness to serve the ministry, a matter over
which OCR has no jurisdiction)

California Department of Education, 47 NDLR 45 (OCR Headquarters 2006) (OCR
opined that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA prohibit issuance of transcripts of children
with disabilities which indicate that student receives special education; student’s reports may
disclose such information to parents; transcripts may indicate coursework taken with
modified or alternate education curriculum; transcripts should not indicate that the student
received accommodations)

University of North Alabama, 104 LRP 58746 (FPCO 2004) (U.S. Dep’t of Education’s
Family Policy Compliance Office advises faculty member that records kept by disability
services office are considered educational not medical records under FERPA; university has
authority to determine extent to which it wishes to release personally identifiable information
to faculty pursuant to its FERPA policy)
-60-

Letter to Moore, 39 IDELR 189 (OSEP 2002) “[T]here is no specific requirement under the
IDEA that high schools must arrange for all students with disabilities to be tested to
determine their eligibility to be considered students with disabilities in college.”

University of Idaho, Case No. 10-99-2044 (OCR Region X 1999) (student who failed to
show need for academic support, even though disabled, was ineligible to participate in
Student Support Services (TRIO) program)

Letter Re: Service Animal Certification, 14 NDLR ¶ 35 (DOJ 1998) (states or localities
which require that service animals be licensed or certified may be in violation of ADA)

Arizona State University, Case No. 08-96-2079-B, 10 NDLR ¶ 272 (OCR Region VIII
1997) (university justified in requiring proof that assistance animal was individually trained)

College of Marin (CA), Case No. 09-96-2195 (OCR Region IX 1997) (upholding
requirements of high tech center specifically designed for students with disabilities:
consistently attend class, fulfill educational contract, follow directions and work
independently)
Rev’d 05/2009 [vers 43]
-61-