Rhodes v. Langston University
462 F. App'x 773
10th Cir.2011Background
- Rhodes sued Langston University and officials alleging ADA Title II and Section 504 discrimination during his nursing program.
- The district court granted summary judgment, finding no prima facie disability and applying a two-year statute of limitations.
- Rhodes argues in appeal that the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 should be retroactively applied and that he is disabled under the ADA/Section 504.
- In 2000 Rhodes suffered a partial left leg amputation and traumatic brain injury, uses a prosthesis, and claims limitations in walking, self-care, and learning.
- Rhodes had 2006 neuropsych testing with recommended accommodations, enrolled in Langston in 2006, completed three semesters, faced clinical course failures in 2008, and filed suit August 12, 2009.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADAAA should apply retroactively | Rhodes seeks retroactive application under Landgraf/Bradley | ADAAA is not retroactive; substantive change | ADAAA not retroactively applied |
| Whether Rhodes is disabled under ADA/Section 504 | Rhodes claims impairments substantially limit major life activities | Rhodes’ impairments do not substantially limit learning or walking | Rhodes not disabled as a matter of law |
| Whether claims are time-barred under the statute of limitations | Discrimination occurred over time; ongoing violations | Barred for claims accruing before Aug 12, 2007 | Claims accruing before Aug 12, 2007 barred; remaining claims timely or not implicated by accrual |
| Whether Section 504 claim mirrors ADA analysis | Section 504 should follow ADA standards | Same standard as ADA; no substantial limitation shown | Section 504 claim fails for lack of substantial limitation |
| Whether temporary conditions or prosthesis use render disability | Prosthesis use indicates disability | Temporary or non-substantial impairment; barred by limitations | Amputation/prosthesis not substantially limiting; limitations issue resolved in favor of Langston |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (test for retroactivity under LandgrafBradley framework)
- Bradley v. School Bd. of City of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1974) (retroactivity considerations in statutory interpretation)
- Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (U.S. 2002) (defined substantial limitation standard for major life activities)
- Johnson v. Weld County, Colorado, 594 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2010) (requirements to articulate impairment and major life activity)
- Borgialli v. Thunder Basin Coal Co., 235 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. 2000) (temporary conditions not disabilities under ADA)
- Berry v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 490 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2007) (disability analysis under ADA/major life activities)