Thomson v. Ameritech College LLC, 2:23-cv-00397

Plaintiff Maria Thomson, who suffers from POTS (a disability under the ADA), sued Ameritech College (Joyce University of Nursing and Health Sciences) for discrimination based on alleged failures to accommodate her disability and for retaliation under Title III of the ADA.
Upon transfer to Joyce’s RN/BSN program, Thomson requested—and received—multiple accommodations, including use of her service dog, extended testing time, and some additional absences.
Disputes arose over Joyce’s attendance policy and whether absences (particularly disability-related or otherwise documented) would be excused or would threaten her enrollment.
Clinical placements were challenging due to Thomson’s need for her service dog; St. Mark’s Hospital was the only accepting partner for the clinical requirement.
After being instructed not to attend clinical shifts without her service dog, Thomson did so, leading to her dismissal for insubordination and related policy violations; she subsequently appealed unsuccessfully within the university and sought a preliminary injunction for reinstatement.
The court held an evidentiary hearing and denied Thomson’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding she was unlikely to succeed on the merits of her claims.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Failure to provide reasonable accommodation	Joyce failed to provide adequate or timely accommodations for her disability (including absence and testing flexibility).	Joyce provided numerous and reasonable accommodations, not necessarily the plaintiff’s preferred ones.	For Joyce; accommodations were reasonable.
Denial of further accommodation for absences	Attendance policy caused her anxiety and risked her health; she needed guaranteed disability-related absences.	Joyce allowed two free absences per semester (one extra for Thomson), others excused with documentation.	For Joyce; policy was not unreasonable.
Denial of permission to attend clinical w/o dog	Should be allowed partial/shortened clinical shifts or flexibility when dog (medical equipment) is unavailable.	After incidents, Thomson was told not to attend clinicals without her dog due to safety; alternative accommodations were offered.	For Joyce; refusal of request was reasonable.
Retaliation under ADA	Dismissal was for exercising ADA rights/requests for accommodations.	Dismissal was for insubordination: disobeying direct, repeated instructions.	For Joyce; dismissal justified, not pretextual.

Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunction—must show likely success on the merits)
GTE Corp. v. Williams, 731 F.2d 676 (10th Cir. 1984) (preliminary injunctions are extraordinary remedies)
Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc., 180 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 1999) (ADA: employer may choose among reasonable accommodations)
Koessel v. Sublette Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 717 F.3d 736 (10th Cir. 2013) (no proactive duty to anticipate accommodation needs)
Dansie v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 42 F.4th 1184 (10th Cir. 2022) (prima facie failure-to-accommodate under ADA)
Selenke v. Med. Imaging of Colo., 248 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2001) (ADA retaliation, burden-shifting framework)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (adverse action in retaliation context)
Berardelli v. Allied Servs. Inst. of Rehab. Med., 900 F.3d 104 (3rd Cir. 2018) (distinction between reasonable accommodation and modification in ADA contexts)