Think Twice Before Terminating a Student for Disability Related Conduct

Today’s blog entry deals with the question of what happens if you are a college or university and a student acts out. The acting out is related to a disability or to medication the person is taking for that disability. Instead of engaging the student or discussing whether reasonable accommodations/modifications might solve the problem, the student if put through the disciplinary system and eventually discharge from the program. These are essentially the shortened version of the facts in Hight v. University of Chicago decided by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on October 31, 2024, here. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories, and they are: facts;  court’s reasoning allowing disability discrimination claims to go forward; court’s reasoning dismissing failure to accommodate claims without prejudice; court’s reasoning allowing certain breach of contract claims to go forward; court’s reasoning denying compensatory damages, including emotional distress damages under Title III and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and thoughts/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.

I

Facts (Taken Directly from the Opinion)

In August 2018, Hight enrolled as a student in the University’s medical program. [Dkt. 20, ¶ 6.] Throughout his time as a student, Hight paid tuition and fees. [Id. at ¶ 21.] Hight was in his final year of the program in the fall of 2023 when he was dismissed. [Id. at ¶ 6.]

Hight has multiple disabilities arising out of physical and medical diagnoses. [Id. at ¶ 8.] His diagnoses include sickle-cell anemia, asthma, autoimmune conditions, chronic fatigue, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and bipolar disorder. [Id.] Hight also had his gall blader removed in May 2023. [Id.] These conditions weakened Hight, which caused him to experience difficulties learning, thinking, and walking. [Id.] In addition, Hight’s ability to think clearly and regulate his emotions are impeded by his generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and bipolar disorder. [Id.] The University knew about Hight’s disabilities and made reasonable accommodations and modifications to its medical program for him such as adding extra time and breaks when he took exams. [Id. at ¶¶ 10-12.]

During the summer of 2021, Hight struggled to cope with the stress of the medical program in combination with his disabilities. [Id. at ¶ 13.] His grades fell, and he received a professionalism concern report because of his absences and failure to report those absences. [Id. at ¶ 14.] Hight was put on academic probation and requested a one-year medical leave of absence. [Id. at ¶¶ 14-15.] The University granted this request, and his leave ended in June 2022. [Id. at ¶ 16.] Upon his return, Hight completed his outstanding coursework and was moved from academic probation to monitored academic status. [Id.] He remained on monitored academic status throughout the rest of his time in the program. [Id. at ¶ 17.]

In April 2023, Hight began taking a new medication, which caused a reaction inhibiting his ability to control his actions and emotions. [Id. at ¶ 18.] While taking this medication, Hight created an email account under the name of another student and used that account to send evaluations and feedback to one of his instructors. [Id.] This prompted the University to initiate disciplinary proceedings. [Id. at ¶ 19.] These disciplinary proceedings were referred to the University’s Committee on Academic Promotions (CAP), which met after receiving Hight’s arguments about why he should not be dismissed. [Id. at ¶¶ 24-25.] Five days later, the committee decided to dismiss Hight and listed four reasons for its decision: “(1) repeated unprofessional behavior; (2) the egregious nature of the final professionalism complaint; (3) unprofessional behavior while on Monitored Academic Status; and (4) significant and sustained academic performance deficiencies.” [Id. at ¶ 26.] The CAP decision did not make factual findings regarding whether the professionalism complaints brought against Hight were traceable to his disabilities or whether it was possible to accommodate any disability. [Id. at ¶¶ 28-31.]

Hight appealed his dismissal to the Academic Appeal Committee (AAC) in a timely manner but was not given the ten-day response period articulated in the University’s Academic Guidelines. [Id. at ¶¶32-33.] Hight filed a written appeal expressing his belief that the incidents at issue resulted from or were exacerbated by his disability and that there was no evidence supporting a finding of academic problems following his return from the leave of absence. [Id. at ¶ 34.] Nevertheless, the decision to dismiss Hight was affirmed, but the affirmance did not make factual determinations regarding whether his disabilities could have been ameliorated through reasonable accommodations. [Id. at ¶¶ 36-38.]

II

Court’s Reasoning Allowing Disability Discrimination Claims to Go Forward

1. A prima facie case for discrimination under either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act involves showing: 1) plaintiff suffered from a disability; 2) plaintiff is qualified to participate in the program in question; and 3) plaintiff was either excluded from participating in or denied the benefit of that program based on his disability. For a Rehabilitation Act claim, the plaintiff also has to show that the program the plaintiff was involved received federal financial assistance.
2. Under the ADA, a plaintiff only has to show that his disability was a reason (emphasis in opinion), for the discrimination plaintiff experiences, whereas under the Rehabilitation Act, the plaintiff’s disability must be the sole reason for the discrimination.
3. Satisfying the otherwise qualified requirement in the university setting, means a plaintiff has to allege an ability to meet all of the program’s requirements in spite of his disability, with or without reasonable accommodation.
4. Plaintiff completed his outstanding coursework, moved from academic probation to monitored academic status, and progress to the medical program’s final year.
5. In a footnote, the court noted that readmission after an academic break allows for the reasonable inference that an institution believed a student was otherwise qualified.
6. Plaintiff alleges that he has a disability and the events the University characterized as “unprofessional conduct,” ultimately leading to his dismissal were traceable to his disability.
7. Plaintiff further alleges that the additional reason for his dismissal were pretextual and were an excuse to avoid accommodating plaintiff and a cover to dismiss plaintiff based upon manifestations of his disability, which could have been accommodated.
8. Plaintiff alleges that the “professionalism concerns,” cited in the decision to dismiss him were caused by plaintiff’s disabilities and/or caused by the ongoing process of providing plaintiff with appropriate accommodations.
9. Plaintiff also alleges that a determination was not made on whether the final professionalism complaint was caused by the medication reaction. Plaintiff also alleges that it was not determined whether his medication reaction causing the final professionalism concern could be accommodated.

III

Court’s Reasoning Dismissing Failure to Accommodate Claims without Prejudice

1. To establish a failure to accommodate claim, a plaintiff has to show: 1) plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability; 2) the defendant was aware of plaintiff’s disability; and 3) the defendant failed to reasonably accommodate’s disability. Further, a plaintiff must request an accommodation for his disability in order to claim he was improperly denied an accommodation under the ADA.
2. Plaintiff’s complaint is very confusing with respect to the way it talks about individualized assessment and direct threat. Since it is possible that once the confusion is cleared up, a failure to accommodate claim could be pled, the failure to accommodate claims are dismissed without prejudice and can be refiled consistent with Rule 11 and the court’s opinion if possible to do so [a docket check reveals that at the time of this writing an amended complaint has now been filed].

IV

Court’s Reasoning Allowing Certain Breach of Contract Claims to Go Forward

1. Establishing a breach of contract in Illinois, means a plaintiff has to show: 1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract; 2) substantial performance by the plaintiff; 3) a breach by the defendant; and 4) damages.
2. A contract between a student and the University can be express or implied in fact, but either way a student has to point to an identifiable contractual promise that the defendant failed to honor.
3. When a student sues a university because of rejection, expulsions, and dismissals, the student bringing such a claim has to show that the adverse academic decision was made arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith.
4. The Seventh Circuit has recognized that the general nature of the terms of the agreement between a student and a university are usually implied. As such, the school’s catalogs, bulletins, circulars, regulation, and other publications, and customs become part of the contract.
5. Illinois law does not recognize a contractual obligation arising from a party’s pre-existing legal obligations, which in this case is the statutory obligations to comply with the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
6. Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that an implied contract arose out of the procedural protections outlined in the University’s student handbooks. Plaintiff actually identifies specific procedures in the handbooks that he believed were not adhered to during his dismissal proceeding, such as violating the non-retaliation policy, failing to comply with disclosure requirements, and not following specified timelines.
7. Plaintiff also alleges sufficient facts to meet the arbitrary, capricious, or bad faith standard applicable to breach of contract claims arising out of university dismissal proceedings.
8. Taking the allegations as true, plaintiff’s allegations suggest that for an unknown reason, the University departed from its usual disciplinary process by, among other things, not providing the plaintiff a full 10 days to appeal the decision to dismiss, which allowed plaintiff’s dismissal to become effective immediately rather than in the usual 10 day period.

V

Court’s Reasoning Denying Compensatory Damages, Including Emotional Distress Damages, under Title III and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act

1. Private parties cannot recover monetary damages under Title III of the ADA as only injunctive relief is available per 42 U.S.C. §12188(a)(1).
2. Per Cummings, which we discussed here, emotional distress damages are not available for violations of the Rehabilitation Act.

VI

Thoughts/Takeaways

1. In some ways, this case tracks the case that we previously discussed, here, whereby the honest belief rule was narrowed when disability related conduct was involved.
2. When disability related conduct is involved, this case makes it clear that it is important for a University to figure out why that conduct is occurring, and to also engage in the interactive process with the student in order to figure out whether any reasonable accommodations/modifications are possible. Failing to engage in the interactive process to figure out whether reasonable accommodations/modifications are possible when the conduct may well be related to a disability is only going to lead to further problems.
3. Causation under the ADA and under the Rehabilitation Act are very different from each other. This court refers to the distinction as “a reason,” for the ADA v. sole reason for the Rehabilitation Act. The specific formulation of the difference in causation between the two laws may vary from place to place, but conceptually multiple reasons can be involved with the ADA, but the Rehabilitation Act has to involve a sole reason
4. In order to be subject to the protections of the Rehabilitation Act, a person must also be otherwise qualified. Make sure in that analysis that you factor in whether the person is otherwise qualified with or without reasonable accommodation/modification. Moving through the program and even being allowed back into the program are strong indicators that a student is otherwise qualified.
5. Check your jurisdiction as to the viability of breach of contract claims. States can vary considerably in terms of how amenable they are to breach of contract claims in the university setting.
6. Always a good idea to follow your own policies and procedures.
7. As we know from our discussion Cummings, here, emotional distress damages are out for §504 claims. They may or may not be out for Title II claims as well. Unlikely to see congressional action to change this in light of the election results that we just had.
8. “Accommodation,” is a Title I term, while “modification,” if the term used in Titles II and III. While the terms are different, their meanings are absolutely identical.
9. The interactive process is always a good idea