Dean v. University at Buffalo School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17539
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Maxiam Dean, an M.D. student at University at Buffalo School of Medicine (UBMED), failed Step 1 of the USMLE twice and requested medical leave and additional study time after developing major depression; UB policies allow three attempts within one academic year.
- Dean requested a three-month leave (to allow medication to take effect and to study) but school granted a shorter, cumulative leave ending July 28, 2007; Dean regained functioning by mid-July but did not sit for Step 1 by the deadline and was administratively dismissed.
- Dean appealed to the school only after OCR reviewed his complaint; OCR found no discrimination and UBMED denied reinstatement; dismissal made Dean ineligible to transfer to other U.S. medical schools.
- Dean sued under Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (procedural due process), seeking damages and reinstatement; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the due process claim (school provided required notice and a "careful and deliberate" decision) but vacated and remanded the ADA/Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate claims, finding genuine issues as to whether the accommodation offered was "plainly reasonable" and whether defendants evaluated the requested accommodation for undue hardship or fundamental alteration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UBMED failed to provide a reasonable accommodation under the ADA/Rehab Act | Dean requested a 3‑month leave (medical treatment + study) and argues denial of that specific accommodation was discriminatory | Defendants say they granted leave exceeding what Dean requested for medical treatment and thus provided a reasonable accommodation | Reversed on ADA/Rehab Act: triable issue whether offered ~10‑week leave was an effective ("plainly reasonable") accommodation and defendants failed to show requested modification was unreasonable or an undue hardship |
| Whether plaintiff was a "qualified individual" and defendants covered entities | Dean assumed qualified due to disability and need for modification | Defendants conceded coverage; district court assumed qualification for summary judgment | Circuit assumed qualification; issue not contested on appeal |
| Allocation of burdens in failure-to-accommodate claims in education context | Dean argued his requested modification was facially reasonable and defendants must show undue hardship or fundamental alteration | Defendants argued plaintiff must prove reasonableness and their offered accommodation sufficed | Court adopted framework: plaintiff bears production & persuasion re: plausible accommodation; once shown, burden shifts to institution to prove undue hardship or fundamental alteration |
| Whether procedural due process required more process than provided for this academic dismissal | Dean argued decision was automatic/animus-driven and he lacked adequate procedural protections | Defendants argued academic-dismissal standard (Horowitz) applies: notice + careful, deliberate decision suffice | Affirmed on due process: Horowitz governs; Dean received notice and a careful/deliberate decision; no evidence of animus or need to apply a different standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Noll v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 787 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2015) (institution entitled to summary judgment only if plaintiff was accorded a "plainly reasonable" accommodation)
- Wernick v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y., 91 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 1996) (reasonableness inquiry fact-specific; used in burden discussion)
- U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002) (accommodation must be effective; ‘‘accommodation,’’ not just ‘‘reasonable,’’ requires effectiveness)
- Powell v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 364 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2004) (education context: institutions need not make modifications that fundamentally alter program)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (Rehab Act requires reasonable accommodations to assure meaningful access)
- Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978) (academic dismissals require notice of deficiencies and a careful, deliberate decision — less process than disciplinary cases)
- McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2009) (burden allocation in employment failure-to-accommodate claims informing education-framework adopted)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985) (courts should accord deference to academic judgments)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (Title II abrogation of state sovereign immunity valid to extent conduct actually violates Fourteenth Amendment; court to assess abrogation claim-by-claim)