Hershman v. Muhlenberg College
17 F. Supp. 3d 454
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- Seth Hershman, former Muhlenberg College student, alleged ADA violations and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).
- Hershman began suffering from depression in Nov. 2010 and sought treatment at the college counseling office; depression continued into Spring 2011.
- Administrators advised he could graduate on time if he attended classes and completed coursework; he missed several classes due to illness.
- Professor refused accommodations; Hershman sought credit substitution, which department chair denied; later advised he would need a medical withdrawal to graduate.
- Hershman remained on track to graduate May 2011 but was not eligible on time; at commencement, his name carried an asterisk signaling a later graduation date.
- He ultimately received his diploma in Oct. 2011 after meeting graduation requirements; this sequence formed the basis for ADA and NIED claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Hershman academically qualified? | Hershman alleges he was otherwise qualified to graduate with accommodations. | Muhlenberg contends the requested accommodation would be unreasonable. | Hershman was qualified academically. |
| Did Muhlenberg fail to accommodate, as required by the ADA? | College failed to make reasonable modifications to policies or practices for Hershman’s disability. | Any modification would alter the curriculum; thus not required. | Not resolved on the record; ADA claim survives dismissal at this stage. |
| Would substituting courses constitute a fundamental alteration of services? | Substitution could reasonably accommodate without altering the essence of the college's offerings. | Substitution would fundamentally alter the curriculum. | Fact-intensive; dismissal denied pending more development of record. |
| Does Hershman state a plausible NIED claim under Pennsylvania law? | There was a special relationship giving rise to NIED liability for breach of duty. | Relationship between college and student does not inherently create deep emotional harm; no recognized NIED basis. | NIED claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1979) ( qualification standard for disability claims under rehab act/ADA)
- McDonald v. Commonwealth of Pa. Dep’t. of Pub. Welfare, 62 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1995) (substantive standards same for Rehab Act and ADA)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (U.S. 2001) (fundamental alteration analysis requires individualized inquiry)
- Toney v. Chester County Hospital, 36 A.3d 85 (Pa. 2011) (NIED in PA limited; special relationship considerations debated)
- Weiley v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., 51 A.3d 202 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (persuasive but not controlling on NIED special-relationship reach)
- Schneider v. Shah, 507 Fed.Appx. 132 (3d Cir. 2012) (pleading standard for ADA Title III claims)
- Doe v. Philadelphia Community Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 745 A.2d 25 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) (NIED based on breach of contractual/fiduciary duty considerations)
- Madison v. Bethanna, Inc., 2012 WL 1867459 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (illustrative NIED case comparing special relationships)