Doe v. Board of Regents, 846 N.W.2d 126

Doe, a medical student at UNMC, sued under ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act claiming disability discrimination; district court dismissed staff individually but stayed the merits against UNMC/Board.
Doe had chronic depressive disorder diagnosed January 2005; he sought accommodations and leaves but never engaged the disability services office; he remained in the program following approvals and remediations.
Doe’s academic performance showed failures and marginal outcomes across multiple clerkships (Ob/Gyn, Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, Surgery) and repeated postponements of exams during sophomore/junior years.
SEC and related officials imposed an academic contract with a professionalism clause and required repeated passes; Doe ultimately was dismissed for professional conduct and academic deficiencies.
The court assumed Doe had a disability but found no knowledge of disability by faculty, no evidence of discriminatory motive, and upheld summary judgment for UNMC/Board; ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims against individuals were properly dismissed.
The decision emphasizes deference to academic judgments in professional-education settings and requires a plaintiff to show disability-based knowledge and pretext to succeed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims survive against the official-capacity defendants.	Doe argues discrimination based on disability under both acts.	Defendants contend official-capacity defendants are proper parties and justify actions as nondiscriminatory.	Yes for dismissal; no material dispute for summary judgment against official-capacity defendants.
Whether the individual defendants can be liable under Title II/Rehabilitation Act.	Doe asserts individual staff engaged in discriminatory acts.	Officials cannot be sued in their individual capacities under Title II/Rehabilitation Act.	Held: individuals cannot be liable; affirmed dismissal of individuals.
Whether Doe established a prima facie case of discrimination and whether the defendants’ reasons were pretextual.	Doe contends marks and actions were pretextual due to disability.	Defendants supplied legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; no pretext shown.	No material issue of fact; defendants’ reasons were nondiscriminatory and not pretextual.
Whether the failure-to-accommodate claim succeeded given knowledge of disability and proper channels.	Doe needed accommodations and knowledge of disability to support failure-to-accommodate claim.	Knowledge of disability lacking; accommodations not properly requested through the designated office.	Assumed disability for argument; failure-to-accommodate claim fails for lack of knowledge and proper requests.

Halpern v. Wake Forest University Health Sciences, 669 F.3d 454 (4th Cir. 2012) (discharge permitted for attendance problems even with disability context; schools need not ignore misconduct)
Morisky v. Broward County, 80 F.3d 445 (11th Cir. 1996) (mental disabilities not always obvious; knowledge required)
Zukle v. Regents of University of California, 166 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999) (pretext and knowledge issues in disability discrimination)
Kosmicki v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe R. Co., 545 F.3d 649 (8th Cir. 2008) (pretext framework and teacher/academic-reservation analyses under ADA)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for shifting burdens in discrimination claims)