Dohmen v. Iowa Department for the Blind, 794 N.W.2d 295

Background

Dohmen is legally blind and seeks training from the Iowa Department for the Blind and participates with a service dog; she is told she cannot participate with the dog in the orientation center and is offered alternatives she declines.
After initial state and federal filings, she files a petition in state court alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and Iowa Civil Rights Act; the district court later dismisses for lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Our court previously reversed and remanded, holding exhaustion does not deprive subject-matter jurisdiction but may defer it pending exhaustion, and that waiver may occur if not raised at first opportunity.
On remand, the department moves to recast the petition as a petition for judicial review; Dohmen files a new petition; the department again moves to dismiss arguing lack of exhaustion and sovereign immunity.
Trial proceeds February 2009; Dohmen objects to jury instructions; the jury renders a verdict for the department; Dohmen seeks a new trial which the district court denies.
The court ultimately affirms the denial of summary judgment on exhaustion and sovereign-immunity issues, and affirms denial of a new trial and Dohmen’s requested jury instructions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction over exhaustion	Dohmen exhausted administrative remedies or waived failure to exhaust.	Exhaustion required; court lacked jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust.	Law of the case bars reconsideration; exhaustion issue not reopened.
Sovereign immunity under ADA/Rehabilitation Act in state court	Department lacks immunity; acts under federal law abrogate immunity in state court.	State sovereign immunity applies; ADA abrogation valid under Fourteenth Amendment; Rehabilitation Act not	ADA abrogation valid; Rehabilitation Act abrogation not; sovereign immunity preserved except as to ADA in state court.
Jury instructions on segregation and discrimination	Should have instructed that segregation and denial of integrated participation violate ADA/§504 and Rehabilitation Act.	Given instructions correctly stated the applicable law and allowed reasonable accommodations/alternatives.	No reversible instructional error; district court's instructions were correct and comprehensive.
Reasonable accommodations vs modifications and service animal	Courts should use the reasonable modifications framework; service animal rights require explicit instruction.	Lower court properly instructed using reasonable modification framework; service animal instruction not required beyond conveyed standard.	Substantial compliance with law; no prejudicial error in the instructions.
Offering alternative training programs	Separate or different programs cannot be used to restrict integrated participation.	Alternative training offered did not deny integrated participation and did not require denial of all opportunities.	Instruction not applicable; facts show Dohmen was not denied integrated participation.

Key Cases Cited

Lane v. Pena, 426 U.S. 211 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (three-part test for valid abrogation under §5 of Fourteenth Amendment)
Garrett v. University of Alabama, 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (abrogation requires congruent and proportional remedies)
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (discrimination against disabled individuals under ADA; integration rationale)
Doe v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Neb., 788 N.W.2d 264 (Nebraska Supreme Court 2010) (education and ADA considerations in public institutions)
Helen v. DiDario, 46 F.3d 325 (3d Cir. 1995) (segregation under ADA/504 analyzed in service provision)
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (state immunity within federalism framework and Eleventh Amendment implications)
Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (statutory abrogation and constitutional authority under Title II and Fourteenth Amendment)