Redding v. Nova Southeastern University, Inc.
165 F. Supp. 3d 1274
S.D. Fla.2016Background
- Meredith Redding, a Nova Southeastern University College of Osteopathic Medicine student with Crohn’s disease, missed multiple exams and hospitalizations across 2009–2013 and sought accommodations related to make-up exams (format and scheduling).
- Early informal requests (to dean-level administrators and ADA coordinator) were largely unsuccessful or rebuffed; formal accommodation application to the Office of Student Disability Services occurred in October 2012.
- The Office of Student Disability Services initially granted Redding requested accommodations (including flexibility and same-format make-ups) but later issued a different memorandum granting only time-and-a-half and bathroom breaks; Redding signed the revised form after a February 2013 meeting.
- Redding later entered clinical rotations (2013), did not notify the Office of Clinical Education about certain absences, received reports of unprofessional conduct and unauthorized absences, and was failed on two rotations by the Director of Medical Education (Dr. Bruno); Student Progress Committee recommended dismissal, which the Dean and Appeals Board ultimately upheld.
- Redding sued under Title III of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for failure to accommodate (make-up exams) and wrongful dismissal; Nova moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Redding was a “qualified individual” for dismissal claims | Redding argued she was entitled to accommodations and thus qualified; her failures were tied to disability-related absences and the make-up exam regime | Nova argued professionalism/attendance and not failing two rotations are essential requirements that Redding did not meet | Court: Redding was not a "qualified individual" as to dismissal claims — summary judgment for Nova on dismissal claims (no genuine dispute that essential requirements were unmet) |
| Whether Redding timely requested accommodations before Oct 2012 (Rehab Act) | Redding contends she made informal requests beginning in 2009 to administrators and ADA coordinator, establishing earlier request dates | Nova contends no formal request was made until Oct 2012 under university procedure, which it says is required | Court: Factual dispute exists whether informal requests sufficed; cannot resolve on summary judgment in Nova’s favor |
| Whether Nova reasonably accommodated Redding’s preclinical exam needs (make-up format/scheduling) | Redding says make-up exams were harder, she took disproportionately more make-ups due to Crohn’s flares, and requested same-format and flexible scheduling to avoid cascading harm | Nova says it provided reasonable accommodations (time-and-a-half and bathroom breaks), which are sufficient and standard; also argues undue burden/fundamental alteration | Court: Genuine disputes exist on reasonableness, necessity, and whether Nova’s granted accommodations were tailored; summary judgment denied as to Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate claim |
| ADA (Title III) remedial standing for prospective relief | Redding seeks injunctive/prospective relief under Title III for make-up policy changes | Nova argues Title III grants only prospective relief and Redding cannot obtain reinstatement; as dismissal claims fail, no live controversy for injunctive relief | Court: Redding lacks standing for Title III prospective relief (no realistic chance of readmission); Title III claim dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment credibility/resolution rule)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (Title III applies where public accommodation is limited to qualified participants)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (judicial deference to academic judgment)
- Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med., 932 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1991) (modify Ewing deference in disability-accommodation context)
- Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454 (4th Cir. 2012) (qualified-individual and accommodation analyses in education)
- Kaltenberger v. Ohio Coll. of Podiatric Med., 162 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 1998) (qualification and reasonable-accommodation standards for students)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (meaningful access requirement under Rehabilitation Act)
- Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2008) (failure-to-accommodate elements)
- Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007) (distinguishing failure-to-accommodate from disparate treatment)