Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis. (Summary)

TERMINATION OF RESIDENT

ADA – REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., No. 10-2162 (4th Cir. Feb 28, 2012)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a medical school which expelled a student who had displayed consistently unprofessional behavior allegedly due to his ADHD. The conflict began after the student, who suffered from ADHD and anxiety but who had not disclosed the disorders to the medical school faculty, developed a pattern of unprofessional behavior. As the behavior became increasingly worse, including skipping required classes and rude interactions with staff and administrators, the school, unaware of his disorders, issued increasingly stiff warnings regarding the student’s behavior. Consequently, the student informed the school of his disorders and requested testing accommodations but no others. The school required that the student meet with administrators to evaluate his needs, but after his failure to attend the meetings and his continued misbehavior, the school dismissed the student from the program. Consequently, the student brought an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. At trial, the court granted summary judgment for the school. The student appealed.

On appeal, the student argued that the school had discriminated against him due to his ADHD and anxiety disorder. The school, however, argued that the student was not “otherwise qualified” for a medical degree and consequently had no claim under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Giving deference to the school’s evaluation of the student’s abilities, the court found that while the ADHD and anxiety disorder gave rise to protection under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, the student’s extensive unprofessional behavior rendered him not “otherwise qualified” for the program. Furthermore, the court found that he could not complete the program with “reasonable accommodation.” The court found that accommodation for an individual under the ADA is not reasonable if it requires a fundamental alteration in the nature of the program. Furthermore, the court found that the school was not required to ignore previous misconduct simply because the student subsequently alleged a disability. Finally, the court found that the school was not required to provide an indefinite amount of time for the student to rectify his unprofessional behavior and thus be fit for the program, nor was it required to engage in an “interactive process to identify reasonable accommodation” because such an effort would not erase his prior misconduct. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment.