Legal Resources
This topical arrangement of court and OCR citations is compiled from a number of sources and serves to illustrate various legal and policy issues in higher education.
The information available at this website is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. For specific questions about the law or circumstances at your institution, please consult its attorney directly.
Tennessee v. Lane
U.S. Supreme Court
Decided May 17, 2004
Summary:
Lane, who suffers from a mobility impairment, and other individuals brought this suit after Lane was arrested for failure to appear at a court hearing because he could not climb up the courthouse steps and refused to be carried. The suit was brought under Title II of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) which prohibits state and local governmental agencies from discrimination based on disability. Plaintiff's in this class action sought to enforce Title II's provisions requiring access to the state court system to be accessible to persons with disabilities. The Court held that the Eleventh Amendment, which permits states to avoid suits due to sovereign immunity, may not be applied to private suits brought under Title II against states for monetary damages in Federal courts to address the denial of access of persons with disabilities to state and local court systems.
Parr v. Middle Tennessee State University
U.S. Supreme Court
Decided May 24, 2004
Summary:
Student with a disability alleged discriminatory conduct by the institution. The Sixth Circuit dismissed the suit, finding that plaintiff's claims under Title II of the ADA were barred by 11th Amendment immunity. Plaintiff petitioned the US Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Tennessee v. Lane, above.
Garrett v. University of Alabama at Birmingham Board of Trustees
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Decided September 11, 2003
Available At:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0216078p.pdf
Summary:
Plaintiffs sued their former employer, state agencies, for discrimination based on their
disabilities in violation of Section 504. The state agencies file a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the Eleventh Amendment bars such suits for monetary damages under Section 504. The Eleventh circuit, reversing the district court's decision on remand from the Supreme Court, held that Congress had unambiguously conditioned the receipt of Federal funds on a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity to claims under Section 504.
Pace v. Bogalusa City School Board
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Decided March 24, 2003
Available At:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0131026p.pdf
Summary:
A disabled student brought a case seeking damages under Section 504, Title II of the ADA, and the IDEA. A three judge panel of the court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state defendants for monetary damages under 504, Title II and the IDEA. However, this matter will be reheard by the full panel of the Fifth Circuit.
Rush v. National Board of Medical Examiners
District Court of Texas, Northern District
Decided June 20, 2003
Summary:
Plaintiff was a medical student with a learning disability who requested and was denied double time in which to take the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam. The court found that Rush was an individual with a disability because he was substantially limited in the major life activities of reading and learning compared to most people. The court, critical of the Board's experts, granted an injunction requiring the NBME to provide Rush with the accommodations of double time for the exam, stating that without such accommodations the exam would test his disability and not his mastery of the subject matter.
Spychalsky v. Sullivan
District Court of New York, Eastern District
Decided August 29, 2003
Summary:
Plaintiff had a learning disability which affected specific aspects of his learning process such as reading speed, spelling, proofreading and number manipulation. Various psychological tests over the course of his academic career confirmed this diagnosis. While in law school, plaintiff received numerous accommodations but was not permitted to waive the required Tax class. Plaintiff filed suit under Section 504 claiming his disability limited the major life activities of learning, reading and speaking. The court found that plaintiff's identified impairments were too isolated and minor to support his claim that his disability substantially limited his ability to learn, read or speak and granted St. John's University's motion for summary judgment.
Marlon v. Western New England College
District Court of Massachusetts
Decided December 9, 2003
Available At:
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/woodlock/pdf/marlon%20%20dec%2...
Summary:
Plaintiff was admitted to law school and began receiving treatment for pain, anxiety and depression. Because her grades were below the school's academic standards, she was informed she was ineligible to continue her studies. She petitioned for reinstatement and retook her first year courses. During this time she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and began receiving accommodations from the school. Again her grades were below the college's standard and again she petitioned for reinstatement but the college refused and plaintiff filed suit under Section 504, claiming the college discriminated against her based on her disability. The court analyzed three main impairments: pain, anxiety and depression. Because she had previously worked as a paralegal and could continue studies at another law school, the court found she was not substantially limited in the major life activity of working. The court also found she was not substantially limited in the major life activity of learning because her disability primarily affected only her ability to take long exams which was too narrow. Finally the court found that the fact that the college provided accommodations was not evidence that it regarded her as actually having a disability. The court did not address the limitations of her various impairments on the major life activities of reading and writing.
Fraser v. Goodale
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Decided September 8, 2003
Available At:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0136018p.pdf
Summary:
Plaintiff, a Type I insulin-dependant diabetic, was reprimanded at work for eating at her desk. She then requested permission to eat, which was refused and, after passing out, filed a complaint with her supervisor's supervisor. Four months later she was fired and filed suit alleging discrimination, wrongful discharge and retaliation. The district court granted the employer summary judgment holding that plaintiff did not present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was disabled under the ADA. On appeal the court addressed only whether Fraser had an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity. The Ninth Circuit found that, in Fraser's case, diabetes is a physical impairment which substantially limits the major life activity of eating but that her form of diabetes did not affect her ability to care for herself, think and/or communicate. The court refused to take into account the food Fraser might have eaten or the medications Fraser might have administered to herself, as mitigating measures, because the employer refused to let her employ these potential measures in the workplace.
Labrecque v. Sodexho USA, Inc.
District Court of Massachusetts
Decided October 17, 2003
Available At:
http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/ponsor/pdf/labrecque-mo.pdf
Summary:
Plaintiff was diagnosed with fibromyalgia which made sitting and/or standing for long periods of time extremely painful. When her employer promoted to supervisor/cashier her schedule changed and she was required to work 12-13 hour shifts. Plaintiff informed her employer she could not work these shifts but that she could work 8 hour shifts. The court concluded that plaintiff's fibromyalgia substantially limited her major life activities of sitting and standing. Though the complainant failed to show up for work when her accommodations were denied, the court did not find that she had voluntarily resigned.
Powell v. National Board of Medical Examiners
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Decided April 7, 2004
Available At:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/029385p.pdf
Summary:
Learning disabled student sued the NBME and the University of Connecticut after she failed the Step 1 Medical Licensing Exam three times and was dismissed from medical school. Plaintiff requested a waiver of the Step 1 Exam requirement from UConn which they refused and was subsequently denied accommodations of extended time on the exam by the NBME. The Second Circuit held that Powell failed to show that, even if she was disabled, she was otherwise qualified to continue to be a medical student at UConn; noting that she had a background of educational difficulty and an average to low-average IQ. The court also held that there was no proof UConn discriminated because they had provided extensive accommodations to plaintiff but were not required to offer accommodations that fundamentally altered the nature of the service, program or activity. Finally, the court found that based on the limited evidence submitted, the NBME followed its standard procedure in denying Powell's request for accommodations.
Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez (on remand as Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Systems Co.)
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Decided March 23, 2004
Available At:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0115512p.pdf
Summary:
The Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to conclude that Raytheon refused to rehire Hernandez based on the fact that he was an alcoholic rather than based on company policy not to rehire employees who had been discharged for workplace misconduct. The court found there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the reason behind the decision not to rehire Hernandez and reversed summary judgment in favor of Raytheon and sent the case back to the district court for jury trial..
Carten v. Kent State University
U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Decided February 25, 2002
Available At:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no...
Summary:
Plaintiff began graduate school at KSU and was dismissed a year later for poor academic performance. Plaintiff then filed suit against KSU alleging that they refused to accommodate him and dismissed him based on a learning disability. Carten accepted admission to the graduate program on a conditional basis and never made any request for accommodations. KSU's psychologist who evaluated Carten stated that the evaluation indicated that he did not have a learning disability. Carten received language, speech and hearing therapy in high school but no learning disability services. The Sixth Circuit, granting KSU summary judgment, held that the university was not required to provide accommodations for a student's alleged learning disability absent any evidence that he was found to have a disability or that he even requested accommodations.
Rothberg v. Law School Admission Council, Inc.
District Court of Colorado
Decided February 4, 2004
Summary:
Learning disabled plaintiff with a lengthy history of disability diagnosis and accommodations was denied extended time accommodations on the LSAT. She was initially denied extended time because she had not completed the Nelson Denny Reading test. She took that test and her score was consistent with earlier evaluations that he needed extended time on the LSAT. She was again denied the accommodation because the LSAC evaluator relied on the fact that plaintiff was able to perform in the average or low-average range on the SAT and LSAT without accommodations and that her deficiencies in written expression and mathematical ability would not impact her performance on the LSAT. The court further found the LSAC's proffered expert witness not to be credible on the issue of establishing plaintiff's disability. The court granted plaintiff a preliminary injunction compelling the LSAC to grant her extended time. The court held that Rothberg was substantially limited in the major life activities of learning and reading. The court rejected LSAC's argument that she did not need accommodations based on her average SAT and LSAT performance because the court found plaintiff only actually completed 1/3 of the exam without accommodations and then randomly filled in answers to questions she could not read and that this compensatory technique does not support a finding that she is not disabled. The court found the argument of the LSAC unpersuasive because it determined that without extra-time the LSAT would be measuring the plaintiff's disability rather than her knowledge.
Chaffin v. Kansas State Fair Board
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Decided October 28, 2003
Available At:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=10th&navby=case&n...
Summary:
Plaintiffs, all wheelchair users, sued the State Fair because the wheelchair section of the Fair's Grandstand did not provide adequate viewing, the wheelchair section was also too crowded and made restrooms inaccessible, the parking lots were inaccessible in that they were far away and full of potholes, and all restrooms were inaccessible because there were no unisex restrooms for disabled patrons who relied on a spouse for assistance. The court said the ADA requires more than mere physical access and that all patrons are entitled to the benefits of the fair. The court further stated that the individual elements that were not physically accessible added up to wholesale exclusion of persons with disabilities and that the State Fair, when viewed in its entirety is not readily accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Stewmon v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Decided August 13, 2003
Available At:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0135554p.pdf
Summary:
Plaintiff, a wheelchair user, sued the movie theater under the ADA alleging that the wheelchair accessible seating, which was in some instances 11 feet away from the screen discriminated against disabled patrons by forcing them to view movies in uncomfortable and awkward seats. The court found for the plaintiff. The Supreme Court, on advice of the US Justice Department decided not to hear an appeal of this matter. However, DOJ has stated that it will look at the general question of stadia theater seating requirements..
Lentini v. California Center for the Arts, Escondido
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Decided May 27, 2004
Available At:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0156612p.pdf
Summary:
Quadriplegic plaintiff sued the concert hall owner and staff under the ADA after she was denied admission with a service animal. The Ninth Circuit court held that modifications of the concert hall's policies to permit a service animal that may have made disruptive noises at past performances, if such behavior would have been acceptable if engaged in by humans, was necessary and reasonable under the ADA. The court also held that modifications of policies did not fundamentally alter services that the concert hall provided.
