Sjöstrand v. Ohio State University
750 F.3d 596
6th Cir.2014Background
- Sjostrand, a magna cum laude OSU Newark graduate, applied to OSU’s School Psychology Ph.D. program and was the only applicant rejected.
- She has Crohn’s disease; interviewers reportedly discussed her condition for about half of each interview.
- Plaintiff claims OSU discriminated against her under the ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act by denying admission because of her disability.
- The district court granted OSU summary judgment; on appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed, remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
- OSU offered five specific reasons for rejection related to fit, which the court found could be pretextual in light of the interview record and Sjostrand’s evidence.
- The opinion remands the case for trial, noting genuine issues of material fact regarding discrimination and pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sjostrand established a prima facie case of disability discrimination | Sjostrand | Sjostrand showed she was disabled, qualified, and rejected by reason of disability | Sjostrand | OSU presented legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for rejection | Yes, genuine issue of material fact exists regarding pretext |
| Whether OSU’s reasons for rejection were pretextual | Sjostrand | Evidence shows interview focus on disability and inconsistent post hoc reasons | Osu | Reasons tied to program fit and applicant’s responses; not pretextual | Yes, genuine issue of material fact as to pretext remained for jury to decide |
| Whether Sjostrand’s Rehabilitation Act claim is viable | Sjostrand | Denial solely by reason of disability under § 794(a) | OSU | Articulated non-discriminatory rationale applies; still disputed whether sole cause | Remanded for trial consistent with ADA analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (prima facie burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
- Kaltenberger v. Ohio Coll. of Podiatric Med., 162 F.3d 432 (1998) (prima facie requirement for disability discrimination in the Sixth Circuit)
- Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 576 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2009) (burden of production for legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Russell v. Univ. of Toledo, 537 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2008) (pretext evaluation in Title II/Title I discrimination)
- Bonds v. Cox, 20 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 1994) (conflicting testimony undermines shifting standards at summary judgment)
- Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (establishes public entity discrimination framework under ADA)
- Andrews v. Ohio, 104 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 1997) (standards for disability discrimination claims)