Rhodes v. Southern Nazarene University
554 F. App'x 685
10th Cir.2014Background
- Rhodes, disabled from a car accident, enrolled at Southern Nazarene University and sought accommodations.
- SNU policy requires medical documentation and determines eligibility via the disability services director.
- SNU granted some accommodations (extended time, note taker not, tape recorder, syllabi when possible, Paper Resources Center access) and suggested study aids.
- Rhodes requested additional accommodations (CD books, syllabi/materials six weeks early) but faced documentation gaps and administrative limits.
- A conflict with several professors, culminating in disruptive email communications, led to emergency suspension and probation; Rhodes later challenged these actions.
- OCR resolution agreement lifted probation and placed Rhodes in good standing, but Rhodes did not reenroll at SNU; he sued in federal court asserting ADA/RA/OADA discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable relief mootness under ADA/RA | Rhodes contends equitable relief remains needed to enforce accommodations. | SNU argues Rhodes has no intention to return, so relief is moot. | Moot; no ongoing due to lack of intent to attend. |
| Emotional distress damages under RA/ADA | Rhodes seeks emotional distress damages for discrimination. | ADA Title III provides injunctive relief only; RA damages require intentional discrimination if available. | No emotional distress damages; RA requires intentional discrimination and record shows none; ADA damages barred. |
| Time-bar for pre-2009 claims | Rhodes asserts timely accrual for earlier conduct. | Oklahoma statute of limitations applied to pre-2009 claims; suit filed 2011. | Pre-2009 claims time-barred; suit too late. |
| Reasonable accommodations and retaliation | Rhodes contends SNU failed to provide reasonable accommodations and retaliated. | Record shows accommodations granted where supported; no evidence of retaliation or pretext. | Summary judgment affirmed on failure-to-accommodate and retaliation claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 2011) (mootness requires live controversy and real-world effect)
- Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Becker, 186 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 1999) (live controversy; mootness principles)
- Mershon v. St. Louis Univ., 442 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2006) (pretext for retaliation; standards for failure-to-accommodate)
- Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2007) (intentional discrimination required for emotional distress remedies under §504)
- Powell v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 364 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2004) (damages limitations under Title III; injunctive relief context)
- United States v. Juvenile Male, 131 S. Ct. 2860 (Supreme Court 2011) ( Article III mootness principles)