Redding v. Nova Southeastern University, Inc.
0:14-cv-60545
| S.D. Fla. | Feb 26, 2016Background
- Meredith Redding, a Nova Southeastern University osteopathic student with Crohn’s disease, missed multiple exams and hospitalizations across 2009–2013 and requested accommodations for make-up exams (format and scheduling).
- Nova’s preclinical make-up exam policy permitted make-ups at instructor discretion, sometimes in different (essay) format, and initially required make-ups within ten business days; policy changed later to allow end-of-semester make-ups.
- Redding sought help from multiple Nova officials informally beginning in 2009 and formally applied to the Office of Student Disability Services (OSDS) in October 2012; OSDS initially granted her requested accommodations but later issued a different accommodation memo (time-and-a-half and bathroom breaks).
- During clinical rotations in 2013 at a hospital site, Redding incurred unauthorized absences and reported incidents of unprofessional conduct; the Director of Medical Education, Dr. Bruno, overrode prior favorable evaluations and assigned failing grades for two rotations, leading to dismissal upheld on appeal.
- Redding sued under Title III of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging failure to accommodate (preclinical make-up exam policies) and wrongful dismissal (clinical failures).
- The court granted summary judgment to Nova on claims arising from Redding’s dismissal, dismissed her remaining ADA (Title III) claim for lack of standing to obtain prospective relief, and denied summary judgment on the Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate claim (preclinical make-up exam accommodations). The court also ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to show cause under Rule 11 for a potential misquotation in filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Redding was a "qualified individual" for dismissal claims | Redding contends her disability-related absences were covered and she was entitled to accommodations; she challenged some factual basis for failures | Nova argued professionalism/attendance and not failing two clinical rotations are essential requirements which Redding did not meet | Court: Redding was not a "qualified individual" for dismissal claims—undisputed failures and academic deference to Dr. Bruno justified dismissal (SJ for Nova on dismissal claims) |
| Whether earlier denials of make-up-exam accommodations (preclinical) give rise to liability | Redding says Nova denied reasonable modifications (format and scheduling) before October 2012 and informally | Nova contends accommodations weren’t properly requested/formally made until Oct 2012 and that it reasonably provided time-and-a-half and bathroom breaks | Court: Genuine disputes exist about timing, adequacy, and reasonableness of accommodations; Rehab Act failure-to-accommodate claims survive summary judgment |
| Standing for ADA Title III claim (prospective relief) | Redding sought injunctive relief relating to exam policy modifications | Nova argued dismissal eliminates any realistic prospect of future injury at Nova | Held: Redding lacks standing to pursue Title III injunctive claims because she cannot obtain readmission; ADA Title III claim dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether requested accommodations would be undue burden or fundamentally alter program | Redding points to instances Nova granted similar accommodations and OSDS approval as evidence they are reasonable and not burdensome | Nova argues operational/academic disruption and uniform policies outweigh accommodation requests | Court: Fact issues exist (past ad hoc grants and OSDS initial approval); cannot decide as matter of law—issues for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute standard at summary judgment)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (Title III requires plaintiff to be a qualified individual when program limited to qualified persons)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (deference to academic judgments)
- Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med., 932 F.2d 19 (modifying Ewing deference in disability-accommodation context)
- Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454 (definition of "qualified" with reasonable accommodations)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (requirement of meaningful access under Rehabilitation Act)