Novak v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University
777 F.3d 966
7th Cir.2015Background
- Patrick Novak, diagnosed with PTSD, enrolled in Southern Illinois University’s Ph.D. program in Curriculum & Instruction and repeatedly received disability accommodations (e.g., extra time, review, retakes).
- The program’s Preliminary Examination has three segments (Days 1–3); Novak ultimately failed Day 3 multiple times despite repeated retakes and accommodations and was dismissed in 2011; he accepted conversion of credits to a master’s degree.
- Novak sued under the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA, alleging termination due to disability; the district court granted summary judgment for the University and excluded Novak’s expert witnesses for untimely and deficient Rule 26 disclosures.
- Novak disclosed experts more than a year after the court’s expert-deadline and submitted attorney-signed letters lacking the content required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B); later affidavits did not cure the Rule 26 deficiencies.
- The district court excluded the experts as neither substantially justified nor harmless and granted summary judgment, holding Novak failed to show the University’s reason for dismissal was pretextual; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of expert witnesses under Rule 26 | Novak: November 2013 disclosures were timely due to a later court order; deficiencies were harmless/substantial compliance | University: Disclosures were untimely (deadline Oct 1, 2012) and lacked required content; prejudice prevented depositions/Daubert challenges | Court: Affirmed exclusion — disclosures were untimely and materially noncompliant; not justified or harmless |
| Prima facie disability discrimination (qualified individual / adverse action) | Novak: He is disabled and was effectively excluded from program because of PTSD; grading errors show discrimination | University: Novak received accommodations and was dismissed for legitimate academic failure (repeated Day 3 failures) | Court: Doubts Novak could meet prima facie test but resolved case on pretext — insufficient evidence of discrimination |
| Pretext for academic dismissal | Novak: Faculty applied inconsistent criteria, failed to review prior submissions, and made methodological lapses suggesting bias | University: Professors honestly and professionally graded Novak’s work; dismissal was based on academic failure, not disability | Court: Held reason (failure of Preliminary Examination) was not a pretext; plaintiff failed to show the stated reason was a lie |
| Deference to academic decisions vs. discrimination law | Novak: (implicit) University’s academic decision should be scrutinized for disability bias | University: Academic judgments are entitled to deference as honest professional evaluations | Court: Recognized limits on judicial intrusion into academic judgments but emphasized antidiscrimination statutes still apply; nonetheless here evidence did not show discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- Musser v. Gentiva Health Servs., 356 F.3d 751 (7th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review of discovery/expert exclusion)
- Jenkins v. Bartlett, 487 F.3d 482 (7th Cir.) (Rule 26 substantial-compliance analysis where main defect was missing signatures)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (Sup. Ct.) (admissibility/qualifications standard for expert testimony)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (Sup. Ct.) (deference to academic judgments in substantive due process context)
- Univ. of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (Sup. Ct.) (academic decisions are not immune from antidiscrimination laws)
- Steinhauer v. DeGolier, 359 F.3d 481 (7th Cir.) (pretext standard in employment/discrimination summary judgment)
- Blasdel v. Northwestern Univ., 687 F.3d 813 (7th Cir.) (discussion of judicial restraint in reviewing academic decisions)