982 F. Supp. 2d 779
S.D. Ohio2013Background
- Carrie Johnson, a student with dyslexia, enrolled in Washington County Career Center’s Surgical Technologist Program in 2009 after prior litigation against WCCC remained pending; she requested accommodations (extended test time, Kurzweil Reader, scanning of materials, and a word bank).
- WCCC provided extra time and access to a Kurzweil Reader but declined to scan materials or provide a word bank for Medical Terminology; the Reader frequently misread medical terms, was intermittently accessible, and Johnson was not given consistent technical assistance.
- Johnson’s Medical Terminology tests/quizzes were handled differently: she had to submit them to the office (unlike peers), did not receive graded quizzes in a timely way for study, and her cumulative grade before the final made passing impossible; she failed the original final and a more difficult re-test.
- Johnson alleges ADA and Rehabilitation Act (RHA) discrimination (failure to accommodate and exclusion) and retaliation for filing the 2008 discrimination suit; WCCC moved for summary judgment on those claims.
- The district court denied summary judgment, finding genuine disputes whether (1) the denied or rendered-ineffective accommodations (word bank, scanning, Reader access/assistance, timely graded quizzes, and altered re-test) could have enabled Johnson to meet the 70% requirement and (2) the adverse treatment was causally connected to her disability and the protected prior lawsuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson was "otherwise qualified" for the program (could meet requirements with reasonable accommodations) | Johnson: Denial/weak implementation of accommodations (word bank, scanning, effective Reader access, timely graded quizzes) prevented her from meeting the 70% requirement; with them she would have passed | WCCC: The 70% requirement is a neutral academic standard; Johnson failed despite receiving most accommodations, so she was not "otherwise qualified" | Court: Denied summary judgment — genuine disputes exist about whether denied/ineffective accommodations prevented Johnson from meeting requirements |
| Causation under ADA and RHA (was dismissal because of or solely because of disability) | Johnson: Actions (denial of accommodations, impaired Reader access, different grading/return practices, altered re-test) show disability was a but-for cause and could be the sole cause under RHA | WCCC: Dismissal resulted from neutral academic failure (grade <70%), not discrimination; even if some accommodations differed, they were reasonable and lawfully applied | Court: Denied summary judgment — evidence could support a finding of but-for causation under ADA and, on the record, a jury could find sole-cause under RHA |
| Retaliation for prior protected activity (2008 suit) | Johnson: Temporal/contextual evidence and differential treatment (references to past circumstances, preferential admission to "prove" no discrimination, disparate treatment vs peers) support causal connection | WCCC: No causal link; accommodations were provided; no evidence of retaliatory motive | Court: Denied summary judgment — plaintiff met minimal prima facie burden; evidence permits an inference of retaliatory motive and differential treatment |
| Reasonableness of specific accommodations (word bank, scanning, Reader usage) | Johnson: Word bank used in prior years; scanning and meaningful Reader access were reasonable and necessary given Reader limits; denial made accommodation ineffective | WCCC: Some requests not reasonable or would undermine academic integrity; provided substantial accommodations already | Court: Denied summary judgment — factual disputes about reasonableness and effect of denied/limited accommodations preclude judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and genuine-dispute instruction)
- Kaltenberger v. Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine, 162 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 1998) (standards for "otherwise qualified" in academic-disability context)
- Monette v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173 (6th Cir. 1996) (parallels between ADA and Rehabilitation Act analyses)
- Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., Inc., 681 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing ADA "because of" and RHA "solely because of" causation standards)
- DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2004) (McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliation)
- Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (reasonableness limits on accommodations and not requiring fundamental alterations)