Doe v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Neb. (Summary)

DISCRIMINATION – DISABILITY

Doe v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Neb., No. S-12-1136 (Neb. Apr. 24, 2014)

The Supreme Court of Nebraska upheld the dismissal of a medical school student’s Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act claims against a university medical school, its affiliated hospital, and several faculty members in their official and individual capacities.  The student was placed on academic probation his first year, asked to have his exams rescheduled twice, and was granted a leave of absence to deal with personal issues related to a death in the family and the break-up of a relationship.  Later, he was granted the unprecedented ability to take specially arranged summer core classes to stay on pace with his class.  During his third year, he failed two clerkships and received a marginal rating in another.  These results were based on a mixture of professional concerns, such as playing internet poker on duty, leaving clinic hours early, and unexcused absences, as well as academic concerns such as difficulty presenting patients, below-average knowledge base, and failing national exams.  The student agreed to an academic contract which included a professionalism clause in order to maintain enrollment in medical school.  During his next rotation, the student received a poor rating and negative comments in regard to his professionalism.  On that basis, the medical school determined that he was in violation of his academic contract and terminated his enrollment.  In challenging the termination, the student claimed that he was suffering from a disability – depression – and that his termination was in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.  It was undisputed that the student had never formally informed the medical school that he was suffering from a disability through the designated process or ever requested an accommodation.

Due to their similarities, the court analyzed both claims together.  The court held government officials cannot be sued in their individual capacities under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.  Next, the court held that the medical school never had knowledge of the student’s disability and, therefore, it could not be held liable under the Acts.  The mere fact that plaintiff told some faculty members he was “depressed” or “stressed” was insufficient to prove that the medical school had knowledge of a disability or a request for an accommodation.  The court also concluded that the academic contract that the student signed didn’t have materially adverse effects on the student, but instead, merely clarified the expectations of the program applicable to all students.  Moreover, given the record full of professionalism and clinical knowledge issues, the student had failed to show that there were any adverse actions taken “because of his disability” by defendants.