PAHLAVAN v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, 2:16-cv-01715

Background

Plaintiff Nima Pahlavan, a Drexel University College of Medicine student with documented ADHD and anxiety, received multiple accommodations (extended test time, tutoring, therapy, one-on-one refresher, Philadelphia-area rotations) during his enrollment.
He passed Step 1 but accumulated multiple Marginal Unsatisfactory/Unsatisfactory grades during third‑year clinical rotations, including failing Internal Medicine (clinical competence and shelf) and OB/GYN (shelf).
Drexel’s Clinical Promotions Committee initially dismissed him in 2012, then reversed that dismissal and granted a one‑year medical leave conditioned on intensive counseling and a return under a Conditional Enrollment Agreement (any subsequent less‑than‑Satisfactory grade = dismissal).
After returning in AY 2013–2014 and receiving the required supports, Pahlavan again failed Internal Medicine, unsuccessfully appealed that grade through multiple faculty reviewers, received a Marginal Unsatisfactory in OB/GYN, and was dismissed; Dean Schidlow upheld the dismissal.
Pahlavan sued under the ADA and Section 504 (failure to accommodate / discrimination) and for breach of contract. The court considered Drexel’s motion for summary judgment on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims and whether to defer to Drexel’s academic judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Drexel failed to provide reasonable accommodations in clinical years	Pahlavan contends Drexel did not meaningfully engage, train faculty, or provide certain requested clinical accommodations (same hospital, formal process)	Drexel says it provided numerous accommodations and addressed requests; additional measures would not have enabled success	Court: Even assuming some process gaps, the provided accommodations were extensive and plaintiff failed to show additional measures would have made him "otherwise qualified"
Whether Pahlavan was an "otherwise qualified" individual under ADA/Rehab Act	Pahlavan argues additional accommodations (per expert) would have enabled him to meet program standards	Drexel argues plaintiff remained unable to meet essential clinical/problem‑solving standards despite accommodations	Court: Plaintiff failed to carry burden; expert could not reliably predict success; no genuine issue that he was not otherwise qualified
Whether court must defer to Drexel's academic judgment in dismissal	Pahlavan argues deference not warranted because some reviewers didn’t consider his disabilities and process was inconsistent	Drexel seeks deference based on faculty professional judgment and documented efforts to accommodate	Court: Declined to afford deference for summary judgment (record inconsistent as to whether reviewers considered accommodations), then conducted de novo review and reached same outcome
Whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state breach‑of‑contract claim	Pahlavan argues breach claim tied to ADA issues and should proceed here	Drexel argues federal claims resolved; state claim should be dismissed without prejudice	Court: Declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed breach claim without prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 475 F.3d 524 (3d Cir. 2007) (focus qualification inquiry on time of challenged decision)
Chin v. Rutgers, [citation="697 F. App'x 754"] (3d Cir. 2017) (courts must assess whether institution conscientiously sought accommodations and reached a rationally justifiable conclusion)
Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine, 932 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1991) (framework for deference to academic judgments where accommodations were conscientiously considered)
Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985) (courts should give weight to academic judgments of educational institutions)
Millington v. Temple Univ. School of Dentistry, [citation="261 F. App'x 363"] (3d Cir. 2008) (definition of "otherwise qualified" in postsecondary context)
McGregor v. Louisiana State Univ. Bd. of Supervisors, 3 F.3d 850 (5th Cir. 1993) (distinguishing admission qualification from retention; failure to meet retention standards defeats ADA claim)
Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454 (4th Cir. 2012) (expert inability to predict success with proposed accommodations undermines ADA claim)
Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of California, 166 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999) (deference appropriate where university conscientiously considered accommodations and evidence supports conclusion)
Wong v. Regents of Univ. of California, 192 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 1999) (no deference where institution failed to conscientiously consider accommodations)
Menkowitz v. Pottstown Memorial Medical Center, 154 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (if more than reasonable modifications are needed, individual is not qualified)