Jeanne m. Kincaid, esq

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 (2^nd 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 (7^th 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)
  

• 
  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)
  

• 
  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 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 disability-related 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)
  

• 
  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)
  

• 
  Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Science, 26 NDLR 186, Case No. 01-02-2039 (OCR Region I 2003) (insufficient evidence existed to establish that college required as opposed to suggested that student disclose her AIDS condition to instructors)
  

• 
  Mershon v. St. Louis University, 442 F.3d 1069, 32 NDLR 77 (8^th 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 (4^th 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 (10^th 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 (8^th 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)
  

• 
  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 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)