Halpern v. Wake Forest University Health Sciences
669 F.3d 454
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Halpern sued Wake Forest University Health Sciences, alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act and ADA due to his dismissal from the MD program.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Wake Forest, holding Halpern was not 'otherwise qualified' to participate in the program.
- Halpern has ADHD and an anxiety disorder; he did not disclose ADHD at matriculation and did not request accommodations initially.
- Halpern’s record includes multiple unprofessional conduct incidents, missed/late duties, and resistance to feedback; he sought an accommodation plan only after dismissal was recommended.
- The SPPC recommended dismissal; the Academic Appeals Committee upheld the SPPC’s recommendation; the Dean adopted dismissal; Halpern appealed to federal court again.
- The court affirmed, holding professionalism is an essential program element and Halpern, with or without accommodation, was not 'otherwise qualified'.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Halpern was 'otherwise qualified' to participate in the MD program | Halpern argues accommodations could render him qualified | Wake Forest contends professionalism is essential and Halpern cannot meet it | Halpern not otherwise qualified (with or without accommodation) |
| Whether professionalism is an essential requirement of the program | Disputed; with accommodations he could meet standards | Professionalism is essential and non-amenable to modification | Yes, professionalism is essential |
| Whether Halpern's proposed remediation plan was a reasonable accommodation | Plan would remediate behavior while treating disability | Plan was unreasonable due to indefinite duration and uncertain success | Plan unreasonable; district court properly granted summary judgment |
| Whether the court should defer to the school's professional judgment on qualifications | Court should re-examine the school’s judgment | Court should defer to professional judgment | Court accorded deference but reviewed for discriminatory requirements; upheld dismissal |
| Whether the school was required to engage in an interactive process to identify an accommodation | Interactive process required to identify accommodation | No effective accommodation could avoid termination; no obligation to extend indefinitely | No interactive-process obligation; accommodations not feasible |
Key Cases Cited
- Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2005) (disability, qualified, and essential eligibility standards under Rehab Act/ADA)
- Kaltenberger v. Ohio College of Podiatric Med., 162 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 1998) (reasonable modifications in ADA/ Rehab Act context; 'otherwise qualified' concept)
- Bercovitch v. Baldwin Sch., Inc., 133 F.3d 141 (1st Cir. 1998) (implicit similarity of qualifications across ADA titles; reasonable modifications)
- Myers v. Hose, 50 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 1995) (no indefinite accommodation; reasonable accommodation should enable performance now)
- Regents of the Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985) (court deference to school professional judgment in academic decisions)
- Zukle v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999) (great deference to educational institutions; review for discrimination; qualifications)
- Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med., 932 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1991) (reasonableness standard for modifications; educational context)