Michael Argenyi v. Creighton University
703 F.3d 441
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Argenyi, a hearing-impaired medical student, sought CART, interpreters, and an FM system from Creighton University; Creighton denied or limited accommodations.
- Before enrollment, Creighton’s responses varied; Dr. Backous and Argenyi urged CART, captioning, and cued-speech interpreter, but were deemed inadequate by the dean.
- Creighton provided an FM system and later limited interpreter access; Argenyi borrowed substantial funds to pay for CART and interpreters.
- Second-year clinical courses without adequate interpreters impaired communication with patients; settlement negotiations occurred but failed, and Argenyi left for a hiatus.
- Argenyi filed suit under ADA Title III and Rehabilitation Act §504 alleging denial of meaningful access; district court granted Creighton summary judgment.
- This court reverses, holdings remand for fact-finding on whether Creighton denied Argenyi an equal opportunity to benefit from medical school.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Creighton discriminated by denying necessary auxiliary aids | Argenyi claims failure to provide CART/interpreters denied equal access. | Creighton argues provided aids were sufficient and necessary not established. | Genuine factual dispute; summary judgment reversed. |
| What standard defines 'necessary' under ADA/§504 | Meaningful access requires effective accommodations, not mere non-exclusion. | District court used a narrow 'not effectively excluded' test aligned with Martin improperly. | ADE/§504 require meaningful access; must provide auxiliary aids to enable equal benefit. |
| Whether the district court erred by discounting the plaintiff's affidavit | Affidavit and independent evidence show need for CART/interpreters. | Affidavit considered self-serving and insufficient absent corroboration. | Court erred; affidavit and record support genuine dispute of material fact. |
| Scope of remand and consideration of costs | Remand to determine what accommodations are necessary and any undue burden. | Costs unresolved since Creighton not prevailing party. | Remand for further proceedings; cost issue not decided here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., 685 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (meaningful access; start by non-disabled experience)
- Liese v. Indian River Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334 (11th Cir. 2012) (meaningful access; context-driven inquiry)
- Loye v. Cnty. of Dakota, 625 F.3d 494 (8th Cir. 2010) (equal opportunity to gain the same benefit)
- Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 1999) (meaningful access in disciplinary context)
- Stern v. Univ. of Osteopathic Med. & Health Sciences, 220 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2000) (meaningful accommodations in education context)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (meaningful access under Rehabilitation Act)
- Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 1998) (interpretation of ADA/§504 standards)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (distinction between reasonable and necessary modifications)
- The text cites O'Bryan v. KTIV Television, 64 F.3d 1188 (8th Cir. 1995) (consideration of documentary evidence in disability claims)