XXIV. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES

XXIV. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES

• 
  PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 121 S.Ct. 1879 (2001) (providing cart does not fundamentally alter nature of golf and is necessary for player with mobility impairment)
  

• 
  Hirsch v. Nova Southeastern University, No. 06-15011, 37 NDLR 183 (11^th Cir. 2008) (rejecting former dental student’s discovery challenges as irrelevant in light of jury verdict that his ADHD did not constitute a disability)
  

• 
  McInerney v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 35 NDLR 218 (2d Cir. 2007) (Ph.D. candidate with brain damage was not required to exhaust administrative remedies with the EEOC before filing suit)
  

• 
  Parker v. Universidad de Puerto Rico, No. 99-1456 (1^st Cir. 2000) (citizen attending university event injured due to inaccessible features may sue under ADA)
  

• 
  National Coalition for Students with Disabilities Education and Legal Defense Fund v. Allen, 13 NDLR ¶ 27 (4^th Cir. 1998) (disability services offices in public institutions when deemed “offices” under state law have affirmative obligation to assist students with disabilities in registering to vote)
  

• 
  Allegheny Health, Educ. & Research Foundation v. Kirkland, 30 NDLR 13 (Bankr. W.D.Penn. 2005) (Bankruptcy court refuses to discharge student loans owed to medical school based on allegation that her dismissal was the result of the school failure to accommodate her ADD; her condition did not substantially limit her ability to learn when compared with the average person in the general population)
  

• 
  Chira v. Columbia University, 103 LRP 51851 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (dismissing claims based on failure to provide adequate housing as beyond statute of limitations)
  

• 
  Wasser v. New York State Office of Vocational Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities, 103 LRP 45947 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (Rehabilitation Act claims of discrimination are based on treatment of individuals with disabilities vis a vis nondisabled persons; discrimination claims asserting different treatment based on severity of disability not actionable)
  

• 
  Watanabe v. Loyola University of Chicago, 2000 WL 876983 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (university's placement office may be considered an employment agency under ADA; refusing to dismiss student's claim that center refused to refer her for job placements based on disability)
  

• 
  Hunt v. Meharry Medical College, No. 98-7193, 18 NDLR ¶ 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (no obligation to provide notice before filing claim under Title III of the ADA)
  

• 
  Leacock v. Temple University Sch. of Medicine, 14 NDLR ¶ 30 (E.D. Penn. 1998) (state’s two year statute of limitations bars former medical student’s Section 504 claim for unlawful dismissal)
  

• 
  DeAngelis v. Widener University School of Law, 11 NDLR ¶ 272 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (two year state statute of limitations bars student’s claim that law school’s failure to provide comparable housing and tape recorded classes violated ADA and Section 504)
  

• 
  Letter to Mercer University, 108 LRP 10898, No. 04-07-2063 (OCR Region IV 2007) (postsecondary institutions may impose reasonable rules regarding the control of service animals, where they eliminate and where they may be left unattended so long as the restrictions do not have the effect of discriminating, denying or limiting access and may require documentation or other information to show that a service animal has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks but may not require that the animal be trained or certified by any particular organization or in any particular method; may require documentation regarding the student’s disability, the service animal’s function, and the nexus between the disability and the service animal’s function; and may require documentation of current vaccination, a veterinary health certificate and license as required by law)
  

• 
  Earlham College, 33 NDLR 26 (OCR Region VI 2006) (OCR declined to investigate student’s claim of disability-based discrimination since she was enrolled in a Masters of Divinity program in which faculty must decide her fitness to serve the ministry, a matter over which OCR has no jurisdiction)
  

• 
  California Department of Education, 47 NDLR 45 (OCR Headquarters 2006) (OCR opined that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA prohibit issuance of transcripts of children with disabilities which indicate that student receives special education; student’s reports may disclose such information to parents; transcripts may indicate coursework taken with modified or alternate education curriculum; transcripts should not indicate that the student received accommodations)
  

• 
  University of North Alabama, 104 LRP 58746 (FPCO 2004) (U.S. Dep’t of Education’s Family Policy Compliance Office advises faculty member that records kept by disability services office are considered educational not medical records under FERPA; university has authority to determine extent to which it wishes to release personally identifiable information to faculty pursuant to its FERPA policy)
  

• 
  Letter to Moore, 39 IDELR 189 (OSEP 2002) “[T]here is no specific requirement under the IDEA that high schools must arrange for all students with disabilities to be tested to determine their eligibility to be considered students with disabilities in college.”
  

• 
  University of Idaho, Case No. 10-99-2044 (OCR Region X 1999) (student who failed to show need for academic support, even though disabled, was ineligible to participate in Student Support Services (TRIO) program)
  

• 
  Letter Re: Service Animal Certification, 14 NDLR ¶ 35 (DOJ 1998) (states or localities which require that service animals be licensed or certified may be in violation of ADA)
  

• 
  Arizona State University, Case No. 08-96-2079-B, 10 NDLR ¶ 272 (OCR Region VIII 1997) (university justified in requiring proof that assistance animal was individually trained)
  

• 
  College of Marin (CA), Case No. 09-96-2195 (OCR Region IX 1997) (upholding requirements of high tech center specifically designed for students with disabilities: consistently attend class, fulfill educational contract, follow directions and work independently)
  

Rev’d 05/2009 [vers 43]