LaMarca v. Capella University

• 
  Morgan v. Nova Southeastern University, Inc., 35 NDLR 134 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (dismissing former medical student’s complaint alleging that the university failed to reasonably accommodate her epilepsy and autoimmune-mediated meningoencephalitis for failing to allege that she is substantially limited in major life activities despite taking medication)
  

• 
  Kazerooni v. Vanderbilt University, 107 LRP 46782 (M.D. Tenn. 2007) (dismissing former student’s complaint for failing to allege facts sufficient to establish that his carpal tunnel syndrome substantially limited a major life activity; university did not regard student as having a disability merely by being aware of his medical condition and making adjustments to his computer and work area)
  

• 
  Burns v. Slippery Rock University of Pa., 107 LRP 45811 (W.D. Penn. 2007) (concluding that public school which offered student teaching field experiences is subject to the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA as an employer; former student could not establish her hearing impairment substantially limited her ability to hear and speak; student never registered for university accommodations; however, university may have regarded her as disabled)
  

• 
  Dalton v. Roane State Community College, 33 NDLR 41 (E.D. Tenn. 2006) (court refuses to set aside jury verdict finding that former nursing student’s learning disability did not substantially limit her ability to learn, even though college had accommodated her; no previous history of accommodation despite satisfactory performance at previous college and on preadmission exam)
  

• 
  Emerson v. North Idaho College, 106 LRP 66423 (D. Idaho 2006) (former student’s claim that nursing program discriminated against her based on her hearing loss fails as student did not have her hearing evaluated as recommended, explain why such loss was not subject to mitigation and did not consult with disability services until after her dismissal)
  

• 
  Olojo v. Kennedy-King College, 106 LRP 38815 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (pregnancy is not a disability under the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA)
  

• 
  Costello v. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 33 NDLR 240 (D.N.C. 2006) (student’s discrimination claim fails because his obsessive compulsive disorder did not substantially limit his school work, golf game, personal relationships or showering; golfing is not a major life activity; therapy and medication improved condition; nor did the university regard the student as disabled by convening department meetings to discuss how to address student’s condition)
  

• 
  Millington v. Temple University School of Dentistry, 33 NDLR 167 (E.D. Penn. 2006), aff’d 2008 WL 185792 (3d Cir. Jan. 23, 2008) (unpublished opinion) (former student failed to substantiate that her long list of alleged impairments either prevented or severely restricted her from performing activities of central importance to most people’s daily lives; handling a drill and participating in dental classes and clinics are not major life activities)
  

• 
  Selandia v. Regents of the University of California, 106 LRP 16247, 20072 (E.D. CA 2006) (student’s physical impairments may have substantially limited her ability to sit, stand and/or walk)
  

• 
  Brown v. University of Cincinnati, No. C-1-04-164, 105 LRP 23835 (S.D. Ohio, June 3, 2005) (former student whose academic history was stellar until medical school failed to establish that his reading disorder and generalized anxiety disorder substantially limited his ability to learn in comparison with most people in the general population)
  

• 
  Baer v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 30 NDLR 89 (D.Mass. 2005) (rejecting candidate’s request for injunctive relief concluding that medical student diagnosed with dyslexia and ADHD was not substantially limited in her ability to read or learn; taking timed tests is not a major life activity)
  

• 
  Dixson v. University of Cincinnati, 31 NDLR 123 (S.D. Ohio 2005) (former graduate student was unable to establish that her diagnoses of bi-polar disorder, ADHD and learning disability substantially limited her ability to learn in light of her substantial academic success (undergraduate and masters degrees))
  

• 
  Turner v. Association of Medical Colleges, 105 LRP 20411 (Ca. Sup. Ct. 2005) (Testing board must accommodate candidates who are considered disabled under California law, even if not required to do so under the ADA; Board may flag such tests)
  

• 
  Steere v. George Washington University, 439 F.Supp.2d 17 (D.D.C 2006) (former medical student could not establish that he suffers from ADHD or that the condition substantially limited his ability to learn), vacated as moot, 35 NDLR 254 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (opinion unpublished)
  

• 
  Witbeck v. Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc., 27 NDLR ¶ 135, 219 F.R.D. 540 (M.D.FL 2004) (dismissing claim of former student who alleged he had a central auditory processing disorder; university’s expert witness asserted that student’s scores were in average range)
  

• 
  Rush IV v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 268 F.Supp.2d 673 (N.D. Tex. 2003) (granting preliminary injunction ordering Board to grant medical student double time on board exam based on learning disability that substantially limited his ability to read and learn; student had history of formal and informal accommodations)
  

• 
  Spychalsky v. Sullivan, 103 LRP 40719 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (student who graduated from prestigious undergraduate university and attended highly regarded law school did not establish that his math and spelling deficits substantially limited his ability to learn, read or speak compared with most people)
  

• 
  Kenny v. Loyola University, 2003 WL 503119 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (student claiming to have fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, morbid obesity, hypertension, hearing and visual impairments, edema, carpal tunnel syndrome and mobility challenges who used a service animal is entitled to move forward on claim that she is disabled)
  

• 
  Fedorov v. The Board of Regents for the University of Georgia, 194 F. Supp.2d 1378, 23 NDLR ¶ 62 (S.D. Ga. 2002) (student considered “current” drug user and disqualified from ADA/Rehabilitation Act coverage when dental school’s dismissed him from program within two months of discovering such usage; nor did school regard him as disabled)
  

• 
  Betts v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 198 F.Supp.2d 787 (W.D. Va. 2002) (although medical school regarded student diagnosed with a learning disability as disabled, it did not take any adverse action against him based on such misperception)
  

• 
  el Kouni v. Trustees of Boston University, 169 F. Supp. 1 (D. Mass. 2001) (student diagnosed with clinical anxiety and depression and later bipolar disorder, which slowed his thought processing and caused "cognitive blunting" is disabled under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act)
  

• 
  Garcia v. State University of New York Health Sciences Center at Brooklyn, 2000 WL 1469551, 19 NDLR ¶ 57 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) aff’d on other grounds, 280 F.3d 98, 22 NDLR ¶ 30 (2d Cir. 2001) (Court may not presume that student diagnosed with ADD who takes Ritalin is not disabled; individualized inquiry regarding impact of medication required)
  

• 
  Green v. Graduate Theological Union, 2000 WL 1639514 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (dismissing claim of former student on basis that "experience of depression" was temporary and episodic as opposed to permanent or long-term; not disabled)
  

• 
  Pacella v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Dental Medicine, 66 F.Supp. 2d 234, 16 NDLR ¶ 189 (D. Mass. 1999) (student diagnosed with amblyopia of the left eye and severe myopia of the right eye whose conditions were largely ameliorated with use of contact lenses, diopter glasses and other strategies is not disabled under the ADA; if student’s conditions do not substantially limit his ability to learn, the fact that he cannot succeed in his chosen career is not a substantial limitation of a major life activity)
  

• 
  Tatum v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 992 F.Supp. 1114, 12 NDLR ¶ 39 (E.D. Mo. 1998) (student diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder failed to establish that impairment substantially limited ability to learn)
  

• 
  Price v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 966 F.Supp. 419, 10 NDLR ¶ 76 (S.D. W.Va. 1997) (dismissing claims for accommodation on basis that candidates were not disabled when compared to average person despite existence of ADD and learning disabilities)
  

• 
  Lee v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, 958 F.Supp. 37 (D.N.H. 1997) (residency student dismissed from program may proceed on claim that medical school wrongfully perceived him as having multiple sclerosis that would prevent him from completing his residency with or without reasonable accommodation)
  

• 
  Darian v. University of Massachusetts Boston, 980 F.Supp. 77 (D.Mass. 1997) (nursing student who experienced serious complications associated with her pregnancy was considered disabled for ADA purposes) [editor's note - decision is questionable given Supreme Court’s Toyota decision]
  

• 
  Tips v. Regents of Texas Tech University, 8 NDLR ¶ 48 (N.D. Tex. 1996) (inability to conceptually organize material not disabling under ADA/504)
  

• 
  Linson v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, No. 95-3681, 8 NDLR ¶ 299 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (although university considered former student’s behavior “bizarre” and “disturbing” recommending that he seek psychological counseling, it never considered him to have impairment which substantially limited major life activity)
  

• 
  Pahulu v. University of Kansas, 897 F. Supp. 1387 (D. Kan. 1995) (playing football may fall within major life activity of learning; but university provided many other ways of learning, justifying denial of participation based on disability)
  

• 
  Saint Vincent's College of Nursing (CT), 19 NDLR ¶ 130, Case No. 01-00-2021 (OCR Region I 2000) (student's test anxiety does not rise to the level of being disabling under the ADA; achievement and intelligence test results were within average range)
  

• 
  Valparaiso University (IN), Case No. 05-99-2247 (OCR Region V 2000) (student’s difficulty in sleeping regularly did not rise to level of being disabling under Section 504/ADA however, Section 504 applies to temporary impairments, here sprained ankle limiting running and walking for three months) [editor's note - decision is clearly wrong on latter point]
  

• 
  Germanna Community College (VA), Case No. 11-99-2166 (OCR Region XI 1999) (even if student's diagnosed "visual-motor integration" impairment constitutes a disability, evidence does not connect any math learning weakness with this or any other disability)
  

• 
  Birmingham Southern College (AL), 15 NDLR ¶ 158 (OCR Region IV 1998) (student with history of bipolar disorder and hospitalization but who has no present symptoms and takes no medication is not disabled for ADA/504 purposes)
  

• 
  University of Colorado - Health Sciences Center, Case No. 08-94-2090 (OCR Region VIII 1995) (student diagnosed with vertigo and major depression not disabled for purposes of ADA as conditions were not substantially limiting; student only limited in performing specialized activities)
  

6. 
   OTHERWISE QUALIFIED
   

• 
  Powell v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 364 F.3d 79, 28 NDLR ¶ 3 (2nd Cir. 2004) (former medical student failed to demonstrate that she was otherwise qualified to continue in program; academic history and IQ testing suggested that she lacked ability to meet school requirements)
  

• 
  Falcone v. University of Minnesota, 388 F.3d 656, 29 NDLR ¶ 96 (8^th Cir. 2004) (upholding medical school’s dismissal of student with learning disabilities who was unable to succeed despite provision of reasonable accommodations; faculty enjoy “virtually unrestricted discretion to evaluate academic performance” which includes clinical performance)
  

• 
  Stopka v. Medical University of South Carolina, 35 NDLR 67 (S.C. 2007) (upholding dismissal of medical resident as not otherwise qualified; medical school more than reasonably accommodated resident by decreasing patient load, permitting him to take longer and providing him with more supervision; resident lacked the requisite skills to care for patients; handheld scanner would not have been effective in reading other residents’ notes)
  

• 
  Millington v. Temple University School of Dentistry, 33 NDLR 167 (E.D. Penn. 2006), aff’d 2008 WL 185792 (3d Cir. Jan. 23, 2008) (unpublished opinion) (student failed to demonstrate disability discrimination; dental school had ample evidence to show that student was unqualified to continue in dental school; courts must defer to reasonable academic decision-making)
  

• 
  el Kouni v. Trustees of Boston University, 169 F. Supp. 1 (D. Mass. 2001) (university justified in dismissing student with mental impairments for failing to meet academic and behavioral standards of MD/Ph.D program, despite provision of reasonable accommodation)
  

• 
  Fedorov v. Board of Regents for the Univ. of Ga., 194 F. Supp.2d 1378, 23 NDLR ¶ 62 (S.D. Ga. 2002) (upholding dental school’s dismissal of student with drug addiction despite his admission into rehabilitation program; even though dismissal occurred after entry, drug use was recent enough to pose an “ongoing threat”)
  

• 
  Johnson v. State Technology Ctr. at Memphis, 13 NDLR ¶ 256 (W.D. Tenn. 1998) (student with quadriplegia permitted to proceed on claim that vocational college failed to provide him with a retrofitted truck; federal regulatory restrictions permit a waiver to physical requirements in some cases)
  

• 
  Maczaczyj v. New York, 956 F.Supp. 403, 11 NDLR ¶ 59 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) (concluding that student who could not participate in masters program residency requirement due to severe panic disorder was not otherwise qualified; participation by phone constituted fundamental alteration of program)
  

• 
  Baker College of Flint, Case No. 15-06-2074, 107 LRP 28426 (OCR 2006) (upholding vet technician program’s determination that student’s visual and hearing impairments could not be reasonably accommodated without lowering essential technical standards; student placed herself, other students and animals in danger)
  

• 
  Appalachian State University, Case No. 11-05-2085, 34 NDLR 176 (OCR DC Office 2006) (OCR faults music therapy program for adopting pitch ability as a technical standard solely based on accrediting agency’s competencies; program must convene team of knowledgeable, trained and experienced individuals to consider alternatives and make a careful, thoughtful and rational decision)
  

• 
  Bevill State (AL) Community College, Case No. 04-06-2070, 106 LRP 56738 (OCR Region IV 2006) (OCR upholds nursing program requirement that students be alcohol and drug-free as condition of participation in clinical program; student claimed he required Oxycontin for back pain)
  

• 
  Regent University (NC), Case No. 11-03-2022, 27 NDLR ¶ 63 (OCR Region XI 2003) (university permitted to impose reasonable standards of conduct and deny readmission to student whose conduct endangers his or others’ health and safety or is so inappropriate that it interferes with others’ opportunity to participate)
  

• 
  University of Cincinnati, Case No. 15-00-2042 (OCR 2000) (upholding requirement that student have foreign language skills prior to admission; music theory and history not considered reasonable alternative)
  

• 
  Bowling Green University (OH), Case No. 05-98-2143 (OCR Region V 1999) (postsecondary institutions encouraged to review essential program standards and, on individual basis, determine whether any may be accommodated for students with range of disorders; lowering of standards is not required by 504/ADA)
  

• 
  Mershon v. St. Louis University, 442 F.3d 1069, 32 NDLR 77 (8^th Cir. 2006) (student failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that he made specific requests for accommodation which the university unreasonably denied; student must demonstrate that such accommodations would render him otherwise qualified)
  

• 
  Carten v. Kent State University, 78 Fed. Appx. 499, 27 NDLR ¶ 8 (6^th Cir. 2003) (unpublished opinion) (upholding dismissal of student who failed to notify graduate school that he had a disability and needed accommodation before being dismissed)
  

• 
  Goldstein v. Harvard University, 77 Fed. Appx. 534, 26 NDLR ¶ 316 (1st Cir. 2003) (unpublished opinion) (university cannot have violated the ADA’s duty to accommodate when it had no knowledge of former student’s alleged disability)
  

• 
  Wong v. Regents of the University of California, 192 F.3d 807, 16 NDLR ¶ 93 (9^th Cir. 1999) (Wong I) (student has burden of proof on identifying accommodations; burden shifts to university to demonstrate same is unreasonable or student not qualified despite accommodation)
  

• 
  Falcone v. University of Minnesota, 388 F.3d 656, 29 NDLR ¶ 96 (8^th Cir. 2004) (student failed to carry burden of establishing that weekly feedback meetings with faculty would have rendered him otherwise qualified, even though this accommodation was set forth in the disability services office letter and was not always honored; dismissal upheld)
  

• 
  Corey v. Western Connecticut State University, 27 NDLR 272 (D.Conn. 2004) (blind student has right to go forward on allegation that university failed to provide reasonable accommodation based on its alleged mistaken and irrational belief that he could not become music teacher)
  

• 
  el Kouni v. Trustees of Boston University, 2001 WL 1254906 (D. Mass. 2001) (student with mental impairment failed to identify any accommodation which would have rendered him otherwise qualified)
  

• 
  Colombini v. Members of Bd. of Directors of Empire College School of Law, 2001 WL 1006785 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (law school could not have violated the ADA for failing to provide reasonable accommodations when student failed to identify any accommodation which school denied)
  

• 
  Garcia v. State University of New York Health Sciences Center at Brooklyn, 2000 WL 1469551, 19 NDLR ¶ 57 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) aff’d on other grounds, 280 F.3d 98, 22 NDLR ¶ 30 (2d Cir. 2001) (student's failure to demonstrate that medical school's proffered accommodations were unreasonable defeats claim that school had obligation to consider evaluator's recommendations)
  

• 
  Onondaga Community College, Case No. 02-07-2055, 108 LRP 11164 (OCR Region II 2007) (finding no failure to modify absentee policy when student never requested same)
  

• 
  Montclair State University, Case No. 02-06-2095, 107 LRP 40041 (OCR Region II 2007) (although student alleged that professor had agreed to allow him to take an independent study as an accommodation, which the professor denied, OCR found that disability procedures do not permit students to request accommodations directly from professors)
  

• 
  Loyola University Chicago, Case No. 05-05-2139, 33 NDLR 256 (OCR Region V 2006) (student who failed to notify university of a failure of accommodation has not met his burden)
  

• 
  Concord Career Institute, Case No. 09-05-2022, 32 NDLR 149 (OCR Region IX 2005) (college’s lack of written procedures exonerated student who failed to timely request accommodations)
  

• 
  Aurora University (IL), Case No. 05-03-2081, 27 NDLR ¶ 228 (OCR Region V 2003) (university did not unlawfully discriminate against student with LD who failed to notify professors each term of her need for accommodations and failed out of program)
  

• 
  Redlands Community College (OK), 18 NDLR ¶ 241 (OCR 2000) (upholding dismissal of student who failed despite accommodations in excess of ADA/504 minimum requirements)
  

B. Processing Accommodation Requests

• 
  Hartnett v. Fielding Graduate Institute, 33 NDLR 130 (2^nd Cir. 2006) (unpublished opinion) (Second Circuit remands case to lower court to determine whether ADA requires an “interactive process” for student accommodations; a reasonable jury could conclude that institution failed to engage in good faith with Ph.D. student diagnosed with Lupus)
  

• 
  Wong v. Regents of the University of California, 192 F.3d 807, 16 NDLR ¶ 93 (9^th Cir. 1999) (Wong I) (medical school dean violated ADA by failing to gather information to determine if student’s requested accommodations would fundamentally alter or substantially modify institutional standards)
  

• 
  Bevington v. Wright State University, 23 Fed. Appx. 444 (6^th Cir. 2001) (opinion unpublished) (dismissing lawsuit filed by mother and two adult sons who claimed that University had obligation to develop a written plan under the ADA/Rehabilitation Act)
  

• 
  Central Carolina Community College, Case No. 11-06-2033, 107 LRP 36682 (OCR 2006) (faulting college for failing to provide effective notice to inmate students as to the procedure for securing accommodations; here, student denied effective interpreting services)
  

• 
  Elmhurst College, Case No. 05-05-2138, 33 NDLR 255 (OCR Region V 2006) (college did not violate the Rehabilitation Act by requiring student to identify himself to faculty as condition of receiving accommodations)
  

• 
  Art Institute of Pittsburgh, Case No. 03-05-2034, 33 NDLR 49 (OCR Region III 2005) (college’s procedures requiring one month’s notice of need for disability accommodations not unreasonable)
  

• 
  Mesabi Range Community and Technical College (MN), Case No. 05-04-2081, 30 NDLR ¶ 103 (OCR Region V 2005) (dismissing claim that college failed to accommodate student’s emotional disorders when she failed to engage in “interactive process” with disabilities services office)
  

• 
  Florida Agriculture & Mechanical University, Case No. 04-02-2082, 103 LRP 11557 (OCR Region IV 2003) (dismissing claim that university failed to accommodate student’s narcolepsy when student failed to go through proper channels)
  

• 
  Cleveland State University (OH), Case No. 05-01-2031, 22 NDLR ¶ 209 (OCR Region I 2001) (dismissing claim of student with mental impairments who refused to fill out the paperwork necessary to seek accommodations from the college)
  

• 
  University of California, Santa Cruz, Case No. 09-97-2169 (OCR Region IX 1999) (although professor engaged in appropriate deliberative process by discussing need for adjustment in homework requirements and allowing student to take course over two semesters rather than waive or alter homework expectations, whether accommodation request amounts to fundamental alteration should not be left exclusively with professor)
  

• 
  Johns Hopkins University (MD), Case No. 03-98-2033 (OCR Region III 1999) (although university’s efforts were imperfect, student’s actions and decisions, primarily not taking advantage of proffered accommodations, excused university’s noncompliance)
  

• 
  Temple University (PA), Case No. 03-99-2049, 19 NDLR ¶ 32 (OCR Region III 1999) (university had no duty to accommodate student who failed to follow established procedures)
  

• 
  Montgomery College (MD), Case No. 03-99-2059, 19 NDLR ¶ 90 (OCR Region III 1999) (college need not honor student's accommodation request so long as it provides reasonable alternative accommodation)
  

• 
  University of New Mexico, Case No. 08-98-2070, 15 NDLR ¶ 157 (OCR Region VIII 1998) (upholding university’s actions in light of student’s failure to follow established procedures for receiving accommodations and failure to notify university of disability until after it dismissed her)
  

• 
  University of LaVerne (CA), Case No. 09-96-2148 (OCR Region IX 1997) (three and one half month delay between request for accommodation and approval unreasonable)
  

• 
  Chesapeake College (MD), Case No. 03-96-2078 (OCR Region III 1996) (upholding college policy obligating students to register with disability services office two months prior to semester and request accommodations two weeks in advance of need)
  

• 
  West Virginia University, Case No. 03-95-2055 (OCR Region III 1996) (student’s failure to follow known university procedures exonerated university from liability)
  

C. Test Accommodations

• 
  Singh v. George Washington University, 36 NDLR 1 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (medical student who requested accommodations after she had been recommended for dismissal made a timely request)
  

• 
  Frank v. University of Toledo, No. 06-1442, 108 LRP 1325 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (Ph.D. candidate who met with disability office did not request specific testing accommodations prior to comprehensive examination cannot claim a failure to accommodate; for subsequent exams, the university reasonably attempted to accommodate the student who either refused proffered accommodations and/or did not follow proper protocol)
  

• 
  Michigan State University, Case No. 15-04-2022, 29 NDLR 90 (OCR Region XV 2004) (university did not violate ADA/Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide student with reader and separate testing room when she never requested same)
  

• 
  Notre Dame University, Case No. 05-04-2079, 30 NDLR 102 (OCR Region V 2005) (university did not violate ADA/Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide student with extended time and quiet testing environment when he could not establish that he ever requested same)
  

• 
  Austin Peay State University (TN), 22 NDLR ¶ 237, Case No. 04-01-2090 (OCR Region IV 2001) (dismissing claim of student with learning disability who asserted that university violated ADA/Rehabilitation Act by failing to offer her multiple choice tests when she never requested same)
  

• 
  University of Akron (OH), Case No. 15-99-2013 (OCR Region XV 2000) (denying claim of student who failed to give proper notice to professor of need for testing accommodation as specifically required)
  

• 
  Florida Atlantic University, Case No. 04-97-2032 (OCR Region IV 1997) (upholding practice that students give minimum three days notice of need for testing accommodations and one week notice for exams)
  

• 
  Edmonds Community College (WA), Case No. 10-96-2044 (OCR Region X 1996) (upholding college’s refusal to accommodate student who only provided one hour’s notice of disability prior to test)
  

(2) Faculty Responsibilities

• 
  Bevington v. Ohio University, No. 03-4031, 27 NDLR 275 (6^th Cir. 2004) (opinion unpublished) (dismissing lawsuit filed by student diagnosed with ADHD who claimed professor acted unreasonably in violation of ADA/Rehabilitation Act when professor treated all students in similar fashion [changing syllabus on chapters covered, assignments and length of final exam])
  

• 
  California State University, Los Angeles, Case No. 09-03-2197, 28 NDLR ¶ 302 (OCR Region IX 2004) (OCR faulted university for permitting its faculty to override accommodations agreed upon between the student and the disability services office: open book or open note exams; campus lacked effective grievance procedure to resolve disputes)
  

• 
  University of California, Santa Cruz, Case No. 09-97-2169 (OCR Region IX 1999) (faulting university for failing to ensure that test proctors provided student with same level of instruction clarification afforded nondisabled students)
  

• 
  San Jose City College (CA), Case No. 09-97-2093, 12 NDLR ¶ 193 (OCR Region IX 1997) (faulting college for allowing professor to deny agreed upon testing accommodations)
  

• 
  San Francisco State University (CA), Case No. 09-96-2212, 10 NDLR ¶ 384 (OCR Region IX 1997) (faulting university for failing to ensure student received extended time during lab practicum; difficulty posed by nature of scheduling exams or lack of proctor insufficient bases for denial)
  

• 
  Bates College (ME), Case No. 01-96-2053 (OCR Region I 1997) (faulting college for failing to have adequate procedures for ensuring that faculty received proper notice of needs of students with disabilities)
  

(3) Extended Time

• 
  Buhendwa v. University of Colorado at Boulder, 34 NDLR 41 (10^th Cir. 2007) (unpublished opinion) (Court rejects discrimination claim based on test-taking anxiety; professor ceased providing extra time based on student being asleep during exam)
  

• 
  University of Illinois, 30 NDLR 104, Case No. 05-04-2078 (OCR Region V 2004) (OCR faulted university for failing to ensure that a student approved for test accommodations received similar accommodations on quizzes; unacceptable to merely give greater weight to tests over quizzes when difficult to accommodate)
  

• 
  Michigan State University, Case No. 15-04-2022, 29 NDLR 90 (OCR Region XV 2004) (instructor did not deny student extended time, but student finished some exams early; student failed to request extended time for labs from teaching assistant)
  

• 
  Redlands Community College, Case No. 06-99-2170 (OCR Region VI 1999) (student with learning disability who received extended time on tests cannot challenge manner of test administration after receiving final grade)
  

• 
  College of DuPage, Case No. 05-98-2033 (OCR Region V 1998) (college did not violate Section 504 when it denied student diagnosed with learning disability three and a half times as long to take tests as nondisabled students when such was not supported by documentation)
  

• 
  Corning Community College (NY), Case No. 02-97-2045 (OCR Region II 1997) (faulting nursing program for putting categorical cap on amount of extended time)
  

• 
  Educational Testing Service, Case No. 02-94-2076 (OCR Region II 1995) (faulting agency for setting categorical caps on extended time)
  

(4) Readers

• 
  Root v. Georgia State Bd. of Veterinary Medicine, 114 F.Supp.2d 1324 (N.D. Ga. 2000) rev’d in part, vacated in part, 252 F.3d 443 (11th Cir. 2001) (TABLE, NO. 00-14751) (question of fact whether Board provided qualified reader capable of pronouncing medical terms)
  

• 
  Northern Va. Community College, Case No. 11-06-2036, 107 LRP 36680 (OCR 2006) (upholding college’s determination that providing a reader for an automobile emissions inspection course final exam would fundamentally alter course objectives; exam is perquisite for becoming DEQ inspector where ability to read independently is essential function of position)
  

• 
  Michigan State University, Case No. 15-04-2022, 29 NDLR 90 (OCR Region XV 2004) (even had student requested a reader for computer labs, the provision of one would not have been appropriate where the language is computer rather than English)
  

(5) Personal Assistance

• 
  Florida Atlantic University, Case No. 04-97-2032 (OCR Region IV 1997) (holding that providing assistance to help student complete essay exam constituted a personal service not required by Section 504/ADA)
  

• 
  Trevecca Nazarene University (TN), Case No. 09-97-2055 (OCR Region IV 1997) (upholding refusal to provide assistant to aid student in completing multiple choice exam on basis that such is a personal service not required by Section 504/ADA)
  

(6) Altering Test Administration

• 
  Hoffman v. Contra Costa College, 21 Fed. Appx. 748 (9^th Cir. 2001) (opinion unpublished) (college provided reasonable accommodations to student with multiple sclerosis by offering her extended time, a quiet testing location, and use of formula sheets; college is under no obligation to require professor to permit student to access notes and other materials during examination, nor is college obligated to locate a professor who would honor student’s request)
  

• 
  Stern v. University of Osteopathic Medicine and Health Sciences, 220 F.3d 906 (8^th Cir. 2000) (upholding school’s refusal to permit student to supplement multiple choice responses when not supported by expert testimony; school did provide extended time in a private room and audio taped questions)
  

• 
  University of Akron (OH), 103 LRP 11607, Case No. 15-02-2049 (OCR Region XV 2003) (upholding sociology department’s refusal to honor student’s request for open book, take home exam; memory and recall are essential course objectives that accommodation would defeat)
  

• 
  Villanova University (PA), Case No. 03-98-2077, 16 NDLR ¶ 170 (OCR Region III 1999) (breaking down complex questions into parts and responding in outline form rather than essay for student diagnosed with learning disability would fundamentally alter nature of law school program, not required by Section 504)
  

• 
  University of North Texas Health Science Center, Case No. 06-98-2002, 102 LRP 38730 (OCR Region VI 1998) (upholding physician assistant program's insistence that student demonstrate proficiency using cadaver rather than textbook plates in anatomy class)
  

• 
  Metropolitan State College (CO), Case No. 08-98-2013, 15 NDLR ¶ 92 (OCR Region VIII 1998) (upholding accounting department's refusal to waive multiple choice tests as fundamental alteration based on results of deliberative process)
  

• 
  Pima Community College (AZ), Case No. 08-97-2014, 13 NDLR ¶ 31 (OCR Region VIII 1998) (upholding professor’s refusal to allow student to take open book exam which defeated exam’s purpose of measuring recall, despite physician’s recommendation based on student’s poor memory occasioned by learning disability)
  

• 
  Central Connecticut State University, Case No. 01-97-2005 (OCR Region I 1998) (upholding professor’s refusal to allow student to take open book as an essential instructional requirement was to demonstrate knowledge and mastery of course material)
  

• 
  University of Massachusetts, Case No. 01-97-2095, 12 NDLR ¶ 315 (OCR Region I 1998) (upholding professor’s refusal to allow student to take exam at home; recall deemed essential)
  

• 
  Cosumnes River College (CA), Case No. 09-96-2002 (OCR Region IX 1996) (upholding professor’s administration of different make-up examination given as accommodation)
  

• 
  Golden Gate University (CA), Case No. 09-96-2088, 9 NDLR ¶ 182 (OCR Region IX 1996) (upholding instructor’s refusal to modify test questions on basis of unreasonableness and academic integrity; ADA/Section 504 do not guarantee “equal outcomes” but only “equal opportunity”)
  

• 
  San Jose State University (CA), Case No. 09-96-2053 (OCR Region IX 1996) (upholding university refusal to provide student with advisor/coach of his choosing to explain examination questions when instructor was available to do so)
  

• 
  Northwestern College (IL), Case No. 05-94-2197 (OCR Region V 1995) (college need not orally test student when documentation did not specifically support necessity)
  

(7) Test Location

• 
  Redden v. Minneapolis Community and Technical Community College, 104 LRP 18236 (Minn. Ct. Appeals 2004) (unpublished opinion) (college made good faith effort to provide nursing student with narcolepsy accommodations when notified two days before final despite the unavailability of a private room; documentation did not recommend any accommodations)
  

• 
  Broward Community College, Case No. 04-07-2049, 37 NDLR 159 (OCR Region IV 2007) (consistent with the college’s disability procedures, student and professor were authorized to amend testing practices, which student repeatedly requested, even if it resulted in foregoing certain accommodations)
  

• 
  George Mason University, Case No. 11-06-2077, 107 LRP 28416 (OCR 2007) (student failed to demonstrate that she suffered harm by taking test outside classroom; she could have contacted her professor to ask questions; student did not object at the time)
  

• 
  University of Illinois, 30 NDLR 104, Case No. 05-04-2078 (OCR Region V 2004) (OCR faulted university for having student take test in stairway nook when disability services office had approved a “reduced distraction” testing location)
  

• 
  New England School of Law (MA), Case No. 01-96-2088 (OCR Region I 1997) (faulting school for failing to ensure that students who take exams in different setting receive same instructions as nondisabled students)
  

• 
  Salem State College (MA), Case No. 01-95-2089 (OCR Region I 1996) (Section 504/ADA do not give students right to demand particular accommodation; upholding testing arrangement in lab in professor’s presence rather than testing center)
  

• 
  Everett Community College (WA), Case No. 10-96-2059, 10 NDLR ¶ 115 (OCR Region X 1996) (college not obligated to administer exam in hospital setting)
  

(8) Make-up Exams

• 
  Harvard University (MA), 19 NDLR 166, Case No. 01-99-2119 (OCR Region I 2000) (upholding extension program fee of $25 for make-up exams unless student establishes that s/he is disabled and postponement justified by disability)
  

D. Other Evaluation

• 
  Amir v. Saint Louis University, 184 F.3d 1017 (8^th Cir. 1999) (request of medical student diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder to receive a passing grade in a clinical rotation he failed did not constitute a reasonable accommodation)
  

• 
  Cabrini College (PA), 30 NDLR 26, Case No. 03-04-2076 (OCR Region IV 2004) (college failed to provide appropriate testing accommodations including double-time, large fonts and clear contrasts for a student with a visual impairment taking placement test)
  

• 
  Oregon State University, Case No. 10-98-2071 (OCR Region X 1999) (upholding university requirement that student enrolled in Ph.D. program take her dissertation orally, albeit with accommodations such as breaks, extra time and sensitivity)
  

• 
  University of Massachusetts, Case No. 01-97-2095, 12 NDLR ¶ 315 (OCR Region I 1998) (upholding university’s refusal to permit student to work on project alone; ability to work in team deemed essential in study of graduate school psychology)
  

E. Course Substitution

• 
  Strahl v. Trustees of Purdue University, No. 07-61, 109 LRP 24433 (N.D. Ind. 2009) (university did not fail to reasonably accommodate student with Asperger’s Syndrome after he had successfully completed two semesters in Spanish, granted a substitution by taking French, but refused a second substitution after he was found to have cheated on an exam)
  

• 
  Spychalsky v. Sullivan, 103 LRP 40719 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (law student failed to show that any disability he may have obligated school to waive completion of required tax law class)
  

• 
  Guckenberger v. Trustees of Boston University, 8 F.Supp.2d 82, 13 NDLR ¶ 59 (D. Mass. 1998) (university engaged in deliberative process absent unfounded stereotypes about persons with disabilities in determining that its foreign language requirement was essential and that no other course taught in English could reasonably substitute; research did not support math substitution as reasonable accommodation)
  

• 
  Pell v. Trustees of Columbia University, 1998 WL 19989, 11 NDLR ¶ 322 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (student who successfully completed foreign language requirement at another college cannot claim university that failed to grant her a course substitution violated Section 504)
  

• 
  Hudson County Community College, Case No. 02-05-2154, 23 NDLR 198 (OCR Region II 2006) (college had no obligation to substitute required math courses when student’s documentation did not suggest such was necessary)
  

• 
  Parkland College (IL), Case No. 05-01-2034 (OCR Region V 2001) (upholding two year college’s requirement that all students seeking to transfer to four year institutions take mathematics coursework, despite student’s documented learning disability in math)
  

• 
  Western Nebraska Community College (NE), Case No. 07-99-2027 (OCR Region VII 2000) (resolution agreement – factors for determining: colleges general treatment of course substitutions, do experts recommend substitution for particular disability, whether student’s and college’s experts recommend substitution for particular student; whether course is essential)
  

• 
  Wright State University (OH), Case No. 15-00-2025 (OCR Region XV 2000) (upholding university requirement that student successfully complete research course with quantitative reasoning for liberal arts degree; eliminating mathematical computations from course sufficient accommodation)
  

• 
  Germanna Community College (VA), Case No. 11-99-2166 (OCR Region XI 1999) (college had no obligation to grant course substitution when student failed to demonstrate with appropriate documentation that his weakness in math was itself disabling or associated with an ADA/504 disability)
  

• 
  Audrey Cohen College (NY), Case No. 02-98-2038 (OCR Region II 1998) (college did not violate Section 504 when it refused to exempt student diagnosed with a psychological disability from taking courses that required her to engage in community service work; curriculum is state chartered and deemed essential to the school of business degree program and has never been waived)
  

• 
  California State University - Fullerton, Case No. 09-98-2180 (OCR Region IX 1998) (upholding university’s decision to deny course substitution to student who failed to make “reasonably diligent effort” to complete math class with reasonable accommodations; documentation did not indicate that such effort would be futile)
  

• 
  Mt. San Antonio (CA), Case No. 09-96-2151-I (OCR Region IX 1997) (unless math is considered an essential degree requirement, colleges must consider course substitution and may not require student to try and fail when documentation asserts that student’s disability prevents success even with accommodation)
  

• 
  Wingate University (NC), Case No. 04-96-2051 (OCR Region IV 1996) (upholding university general education requirement that all students take foreign language courses, regardless of disability-related difficulties)
  

F. Extended Time to Complete Course

• 
  Smith v. University of the State of N.Y., 1997 WL 800882, 11 NDLR ¶ 234 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) (university’s failure to grant student with clinical depression an incomplete, place him on provisional status or inactive status unjustified in light of evidence that professors have done so for similarly situated nondisabled students, raises presumption of ADA/504 violation)
  

• 
  California State University - Sacramento (CA), Case No. 09-95-2154-I, 8 NDLR ¶ 372 (OCR Region IX 1996) (upholding university’s refusal to grant second extension for completing course when first extension granted on basis of disability)
  

• 
  University of Wisconsin - Madison, Case No. 05-95-2105 (OCR Region V 1996) (upholding university’s refusal to grant fourth extension to complete masters thesis; no likelihood that another extension would be effective)
  

G. Extended Time to Complete Assignments

• 
  Shepard v. Irving, 77 Fed. Appx. 615, 26 NDLR ¶ 204 (4^th Cir. 2003) (opinion unpublished) (remanding claim to District Court on whether university violated ADA/Rehabilitation Act by failing to permit student with learning disability additional time to complete assignment, who then received an “F”)
  

• 
  LaMarca v. Capella University, No. 05-00642 (C.D. Calif. 2007) (student’s amorphous request for unlimited time to complete assignments is not reasonable, particularly when student was able to complete assignments within given time frame and obtained superior grades; and eliminating several weeks of coursework and decreasing the number of assignments in order to permit student to keep up with classmates is a substantial modification of the program and not reasonable; student’s refusal to accept an offer for directed study which would have addressed all of his needs bars a claim of failure to accommodate)
  

• 
  Doe v. Haverford Sch., 39 NDLR ¶ 266 (E.D. Penn. 2003) (Court refuses to substitute its judgment for that of educators in independent school who refused to grant further extensions on assignments for student who consistently failed to complete coursework in timely fashion; fact that school had provided similar accommodation in prior years does not obligate institution to honor request indefinitely)
  

H. Extended Time to Complete Degree

• 
  Long v. Howard University, 550 F.3d 21, 38 NDLR 56 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (although jury concluded that university discriminated against Ph.D. candidate by refusing to modify its “course viability” rule, the statute of limitations barred his claim)
  

• 
  Quinn v. University of Oklahoma, No. 07-6045, 37 NDLR 21 (10^th Cir. 2008) (Ph.D. candidate’s claim that university’s refusal to grant a sixth one year extension to complete his dissertation was discriminatory is time-barred)
  

• 
  Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Ca., 166 F. 3d 1041 (9^th Cir. 1999) (upholding medical school’s refusal to extend time between clinical rotations to enable student diagnosed with learning disability to read texts beforehand when student did not request such prior to dismissal, and when school already had provided a decelerated schedule as an accommodation)
  

• 
  Bastyr University (WA), Case No. 10-03-2064, 104 LRP 35889 (OCR Region X 2004) (OCR upheld a university’s refusal to extend the time for completion of its Masters degree in Applied Behavioral Science (five years) when it had already agreed to extend it twice by one year and the five year requirement was required by its accrediting agency; student failed to submit necessary written paperwork to receive extension)
  

• 
  The New School for Social Research (NY), Case No. 02-97-241 (OCR Region II 1998) (school that had granted student five extensions to complete Ph.D. requirements did not violate Section 504 by refusing to continue his studies beyond twelve years when no request was made for disability-related reasons)
  

• 
  University of Washington, 15 NDLR ¶ 125 (OCR Region X 1998) (law school practice of charging tuition per quarter versus per credit does not violate the ADA or Section 504 even though some students with disabilities require a reduced course load; nondisabled students who take longer to complete degree are similarly treated)
  

I. Home Instruction

• 
  Cabrillo Community College (CA), Case No. 09-96-2150 (OCR Region IX 1996) (upholding college’s refusal to provide semester-long “home tutoring” for course with lab component; college’s responsibility to provide auxiliary aids does not generally extend “beyond the physical boundaries of its educational programs wherever those programs are operated” and home-study is a personal service not required by Section 504 or the ADA)
  

J. Attendance

• 
  Maczaczyj v. New York, 956 F.Supp. 403, 11 NDLR ¶ 59 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) (upholding requirement of in-person residency; participation by phone constituted fundamental alteration of program)
  

• 
  University of Illinois, 30 NDLR 104, Case No. 05-04-2078 (OCR Region V 2004) (OCR found no fault with an instructor’s announced policy of failing any student who missed in excess of ten classes; evidence adduced that policy was applied to nondisabled students as well)
  

• 
  Seattle University (WA), Case No. 10-03-2050, 27 NDLR ¶ 321 (OCR Region X 2003) (law school articulated legitimate educational rationale for requiring classroom attendance)
  

• 
  Metropolitan State College (CO), Case No. 08-98-2013, 15 NDLR ¶ 92 (OCR Region VIII 1998) (upholding accounting department's refusal to relax attendance policy after engaging in deliberative process and concluding such would result in fundamental alteration based of program)
  

• 
  Cabrillo Community College (CA), Case No. 09-96-2150 (OCR Region IX 1996) (essentiality of attendance decided on case-by-case basis in light of class requirements and methodology; when attendance is not essential, college should consider taping classes for students whose disabilities prevent attendance)
  

K. Part-Time Status

• 
  Los Angeles Community College District (CA); East Los Angeles College (CA), Case Nos. 09-95-2189; 09-95-2190 (OCR Region IX 1996) (colleges violated Section 504/ADA by failing to justify imposition of minimum prescribed course load in order to participate in student governance)
  

L. Remote Access

• 
  Capella University (MN), Case No. 05-04-2063 (OCR Region V 2004) (student failed to establish that university’s web-based software program was inaccessible to students with learning disabilities; all students experienced difficulty when university changed platform; student obtained A’s in courses)
  

• 
  Bastyr University (WA), Case No. 10-03-2064, 104 LRP 35889 (OCR Region X 2004) (university established that to permit student to take course remotely would result in a fundamental alteration of its program)