Argenyi v. Creighton Univ. - 703 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2013)

Rule:

To assert a discrimination claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 12182, or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 794, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is disabled and academically qualified to attend a school, (2) the school is a place of public accommodation (for ADA purposes) and receives federal funding (for Rehabilitation Act purposes), and (3) the school discriminated against him based on his disability.

Facts:

Michael Argenyi, a young man with a serious hearing impairment, moved from Seattle to Omaha, Nebraska to attend medical school at Creighton University. Before enrolling Argenyi requested specific accommodations from Creighton for his hearing impairment. They were denied, but Argenyi repeatedly renewed them during his first two years at Creighton Medical School. He explained that without these accommodations he was unable to follow lectures, participate in labs, or communicate with patients. Because Creighton failed to provide what he considered necessary and reasonable accommodations, Argenyi brought this action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12182, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. The district court decided that Argenyi had not shown his requested accommodations were necessary and granted summary judgment to Creighton while denying its motion for costs. Argenyi and Creighton both appealed.

Issue:

Did the district court err in finding that the student did not show his requested accommodations were necessary and in granting summary judgment to the university?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court found that the district court, in granting summary judgment to the university, disregarded the student's affidavit, termed it self-serving and concluded there was an absence of evidence to support his claim. There was, however, a variety of supporting evidence in the record. The student's affidavit, corroborated by evidence from his doctors and his own need to obtain private loans for auxiliary aids and interpreters, provided strong evidence that the university's accommodations were inadequate and that the university was not entitled to summary judgment. The evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the university denied the student an equal opportunity to gain the same benefit from medical school as his nondisabled peers by refusing to provide his requested accommodations. The record supported the student's claim that he was unable to follow lectures and classroom dialogue or successfully communicate with clinical patients. From such evidence a reasonable factfinder could determine the student was denied an opportunity to benefit from medical school equal to that of his nondisabled classmates.