Cases & Developments

Opinion Affirming Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former nursing student at the University of Louisiana at Monroe, sued the university alleging, inter alia, discrimination based on disability and failure to accommodate after she failed several courses and was dismissed from the program. The district court granted summary judgment for the university and the plaintiff appealed on two grounds: (1) that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her failure to accommodate claim; and (2) the court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s Rule 56(b) motion for more discovery time. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that because plaintiff’s need for an accommodation due to her ADHD “was not open and obvious” and because she failed to request an accommodation, there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the university knew of her need for an accommodation. The court further held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion, finding she failed to diligently pursue discovery during her three-month continuance.

Opinion Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff, a former Ph.D. student at Vanderbilt University, sued the university alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract after she was dismissed from her program following disputes with her academic advisor. The court denied plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction reinstating her into the program, concluding she had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits on any of her claims. The court found plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on her failure to accommodate claim because her request for an extension to complete her thesis was vague and unreasonable. The court also found plaintiff unlikely to succeed on her disability discrimination claim, since she was dismissed based on her failure to secure a new advisor, and not because of a qualifying disability. The court also determined plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on her retaliation claim, given the extensive gaps between her request for accommodations and the university’s decision to remove her advisor and dismiss her from the program. Finally, the court determined plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on her breach of contract claims, finding that if a contractual relationship existed between the parties, plaintiff’s prior failure to meet academic expectations constituted a material breach that excused the university from later complying with its probationary and dismissal procedures.

Memorandum and order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (MCPHS or the College) brought discrimination claims alleging violation of the Rehabilitation Act, the American with Disabilities Act, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of contract, and denial of basic fairness following his dismissal from the College’s pharmaceutical graduate program. Plaintiff took a leave of absence following a hospitalization and diagnosis of chronic migraines. Plaintiff alleged the dean assured him that he (1) would not be penalized for his condition, (2) could retake any missed classes the following semester, and (3) would be permitted extra time on additional days for test taking. Plaintiff further alleged that the dean assured him that sorting his logistics with the University regarding the foregoing would be taken care of on his behalf. Plaintiff alleged that despite these assurances, the dean did not report that plaintiff took a leave of absence and as a result, plaintiff received failing grades in all of his classes instead of withdrawals for the fall 2021 semester, which resulted in plaintiff’s dismissal from the College based on poor academic performance, which was in error. In allowing plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims to proceed, the court found that plaintiff demonstrated he could satisfy programmatic requirements with proper accommodations, had they been provided, writing, “Because [plaintiff] has alleged that he would be granted additional time on examinations which did not occur and provided a medical letter stating his need for aid, [] he has alleged sufficient facts that he requested an accommodation that was not provided.” The court dismissed claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices, finding that in addition to failing to serve the required demand letter, plaintiff misconstrued the meaning of the term “trade or commerce.” It also dismissed the breach of contract claim since the College’s handbook expressly stated that it “is not intended and cannot be construed as a contract or guaranty of any kind, express or implied, and the University may change, delete, or add to these guidelines unilaterally in its sole discretion and without notice.” Finally, it dismissed remaining claims alleging the denial of basic fairness, since plaintiff failed to adequately allege the College acted arbitrarily or capriciously in conducting his dismissal and further failed to point to any policy requiring a formal hearing prior to the dismissal.