FILTERS
- Age Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Diversity in Employment
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
- Race and National Origin Discrimination
- Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
- Retaliation
- Sex Discrimination
- Veterans Discrimination
- Academic Freedom & Employee Speech
- Background Checks & Employee Verification
- Collective Bargaining
- Diversity in Employment
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Discipline & Due Process
- Employee Sexual Misconduct
- Employment of Foreign Nationals
- Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Intellectual Property
- Reproductive Health Issues
- Research
- Retaliation
- Tenure
- Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Ethical Obligations of Higher Education Lawyers
- Evaluation of Operations & Staff in the General Counsel’s Office
- External Counsel
- Law Office Management
- Law Office Technology
- Law Office Training
- Roles & Responsibilities of the General Counsel
- Wellness & Stress Management
- Academic Performance and Misconduct
- Admissions
- Distressed & Suicidal Students
- Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans
- Hazing
- Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work
- Student Athlete Issues
- Student Conduct
- Student Housing
- Student Organizations
- Student Speech & Campus Unrest
- Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
- Uncategorized
Latest Cases & Developments
Date:
Bennett v. Hurley Med. Ctr. (6th Cir. Nov. 9, 2023)
Opinion affirming Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff, a nursing student at the University of Michigan-Flint and clinical intern during Fall 2020 at the Hurley Medical Center who had a history of panic attacks, brought disability discrimination claims against the Center because it withdrew permission for her to have her service dog accompany her on clinical rotations on patient floors after patients and staff had allergic reactions caused by his presence. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the Center, the Sixth Circuit held that plaintiff’s intentional discrimination claim failed because she did not show that the hospital’s decision was motivated by anything other than the allergic reactions, which posed a direct threat to the health and safety of patients. Turning to her failure to accommodate claim, the court found that (1) accommodations necessary to permit the dog’s presence on patient floors, such as screening all patients for allergies, moving patients to other non-specialized floors, and reassigning staff during the COVID-19 pandemic, were not reasonable and (2) the Center repeatedly consulted with medical experts on the feasibility of each of plaintiff’s suggested accommodations and reasonably offered to permit the dog to be present in a crate on a separate floor, and was willing to consider permitting the dog to accompany plaintiff wearing a Shed Defender but plaintiff failed to follow up on procuring the garment for Pistol.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Service & Support Animals
NACUA Annual Conference
Join us in the Music City June 29 – July 2 to connect, learn, and lead alongside higher education attorneys shaping policy, practice, and impact nationwide together.