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.