Marshall v. Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine, 1:18-cv-00631

Background

James D. Marshall, a second‑year student at Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine (ACOM), alleged situational depression and acute stress and requested schedule relief for exams in June 2018.
After a June 4 exam in which Marshall scored highly, ACOM proctors reported "suspicious behavior;" the Student Progress Committee (SPC) voided his June 4 score and required a retake.
Marshall retook a renal remediation exam on June 13; a proctor’s remark and his alleged distraction led to a further honor‑code allegation based on possession of a cell phone.
The SPC recommended dismissal; the Dean affirmed; the ACOM Appeals Board declined to overturn—Marshall was dismissed and then filed this suit seeking injunctive relief (reinstatement) alleging ADA discrimination, failure to accommodate, due process violations, and FMLA violations.
ACOM moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the district court granted the motion in full, dismissing Marshall’s ADA (Title III) claims, due‑process / § 1983 theory for lack of state action, and FMLA claims as inapplicable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ACOM violated Title III of the ADA by dismissing Marshall for conduct related to his alleged mental disability	Marshall says ACOM knew of his situational depression/acute stress and dismissed him in violation of the ADA	ACOM contends dismissal was for misconduct (suspicious behavior, phone violation), not because of a disability	Court: Dismissal was for behavioral misconduct; Marshall failed to plead dismissal "because of" a disability — ADA dismissal claim fails
Whether ACOM failed to provide reasonable accommodation (rescheduling/extra time) under the ADA	Marshall asserts he requested moving the exam to afternoon and needed accommodation due to stress/depression	ACOM argues Marshall did not give specific notice of a disability or a specific accommodation request per handbook/ADA requirements	Court: Plaintiff lacked standing to seek forward‑looking ADA relief (no prospective remedy available after dismissal) and failed to plead a specific, adequate request for accommodation; claim dismissed
Whether ACOM’s actions violated Marshall’s due process or § 1983 rights	Marshall contends procedural defects and lack of notice (e.g., strict liability re: phone) violated his constitutional due process	ACOM argues it is a private institution and its actions are not state action subject to § 1983 or constitutional due process	Court: Plaintiff did not allege ACOM is a state actor; constitutional/due process claims dismissed
Whether FMLA applies	Marshall claims FMLA rights were violated	ACOM notes FMLA applies only to employees meeting eligibility criteria; Marshall was a student, not an employee	Court: FMLA inapplicable; claim dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: courts need not accept legal conclusions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible, not speculative)
Rendell‑Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (private schools’ employment decisions generally not state action)
Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (judicial deference to academic judgments)
Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (academic dismissals require deference; not suited to judicial procedures)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
Wooden v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 247 F.3d 1262 (ADA injunctive relief requires real and immediate threat of future discrimination)
Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173 (dismissal appropriate where court lacks subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Gaston v. Bellingrath Gardens & Home, Inc., 167 F.3d 1361 (duty to accommodate arises only after a specific accommodation request)