Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med. - 976 F.2d 791 (1st Cir. 1992)

Rule:

The test for determining whether an academic institution adequately explored the availability of reasonable accommodations states that: if the institution submits undisputed facts demonstrating that the relevant officials within the institution considered alternative means, their feasibility, cost and effect on the academic program, and came to a rationally justifiable conclusion that the available alternatives would result either in lowering academic standards or requiring substantial program alteration, the court may rule as a matter of law that the institution had met its duty of seeking reasonable accommodation. In the qualified immunity context, the issue of whether the facts alleged by a university support its claim that it has met its duty of reasonable accommodation will be a purely legal one. Only if essential facts are genuinely disputed or if there are significantly probative evidence of bad faith or pretext would further fact finding be necessary.

Facts:

Plaintiff Steven Wynne matriculated at defendant Tufts University School of Medicine in 1983. Plaintiff failed eight of fifteen first-year courses. Although academic guidelines provided for dismissal after five course failures, the dean granted plaintiff a special dispensation and allowed him to repeat the first year of medical school. Over the summer of 1984, plaintiff underwent neuropsychological testing at defendant’s instance and expense. The results showed cognitive deficits and weaknesses in processing discrete units of information. However, no differential diagnosis of dyslexia or any other particularized learning disability was made at this time. During plaintiff’s second tour of the first-year curriculum, defendant arranged to supply him with tutors, counsellors, note-takers, and other aids. This time, he passed all but two courses. Defendant permitted plaintiff to take make-up examinations in these two subjects; however, plaintiff failed his biochemistry exam. Plaintiff was dismissed. Subsequently, plaintiff brought an action against the defendant, alleging handicap discrimination because he had been dismissed after failing his courses. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant but the appellate court reversed, as the record did not address the issue of whether defendant made reasonable accommodations for plaintiff. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could the defendant be held liable for handicap discrimination, thereby making the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant an error?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the Court affirmed and held that plaintiff was not an otherwise qualified handicapped person within the meaning of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.S. § 794. Defendant had carried its burden of showing that no further accommodation could be made without causing an undue and injurious hardship on the academic program. Defendant permitted plaintiff to repeat his courses, arranged for neuropsychological testing, furnished him with access to tutoring, taped lectures, and provided untimed and makeup exams. The Court concluded that defendant had not failed to make reasonable accommodations merely because it did not offer plaintiff an oral biochemistry exam. The Court found that plaintiff's claim of pretext was unsupported.