John Doe v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Neb.
| Decision Date | 24 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. S–12–1136,S–12–1136 |
| Citation | 287 Neb. 990,846 N.W.2d 126 |
| Parties | John Doe, Appellant, v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Shelly R. Stratman, Judge. Affirmed.
John Doe, pro se.
Amy L. Longo and Lawrence K. Sheehan, of Ellick, Jones, Buelt, Blazek & Longo, L.L.P., for appellees.
1. Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings and admissible evidence offered at the hearing show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
2. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted, and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.
3. Federal Acts: Discrimination: Claims. Because the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 sets forth the same remedies, procedures, and rights as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, claims brought under both acts are analyzed together.
4. Federal Acts: Discrimination: Public Officers and Employees: Immunity. Government officials cannot be sued in their individual capacities under either title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
5. Summary Judgment: Proof. A party makes a prima facie case that it is entitled to summary judgment by offering sufficient evidence that, assuming the evidence went uncontested at trial, would entitle the party to a favorable verdict.
6. Summary Judgment: Evidence: Proof. After the movant for summary judgment makes a prima facie case by producing enough evidence to demonstrate that the movant is entitled to judgment if the evidence was uncontroverted at trial, the burden to produce evidence showing the existence of a material issue of fact that prevents judgment as a matter of law shifts to the party opposing the motion.
7. Federal Acts: Discrimination: Proof. The burden of proving discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 remains always with the plaintiff.
8. Federal Acts: Discrimination: Proof. The burden of production in an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 shifts between the parties under the framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).
9. Federal Acts: Discrimination: Proof. A student bringing action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for discrimination by an educational institution and its officers in their official capacities must first make out a prima facie case by proving (1) that he or she was disabled within the meaning of the acts; (2) that he or she otherwise was able, with or without accommodations, to meet the academic and technical standards requisite to admission and participation in the school's education program; and (3) that he or she suffered an adverse action because of his or her disability.
10. Federal Acts: Discrimination: Proof. Once a prima facie case of discrimination is made under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the burden shifts to the defendants to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action. Upon such articulation by the defendants, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence that the stated nondiscriminatory reason is a pretext for discrimination.
11. Federal Acts: Discrimination. If the defendant did not know of the plaintiff's disability, then the defendant cannot be liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
12. Discrimination: Mental Health. Mental disabilities are rarely open, obvious, and apparent.
13. Federal Acts: Discrimination. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, adverse actions because of discrimination include failing to make reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability.
14. Discrimination: Proof. The plaintiff claiming discrimination based on a failure to accommodate must identify a specific reasonable accommodation or accommodations that would allow the plaintiff to perform under the program at issue.
15. Discrimination: Liability. When a program provides reasonable designated channels through which participants must notify the program of a disability and the requested accommodations, then the program is not liable for a failure to accommodate unless the plaintiff utilizes those channels.
16. Discrimination. The element of adverse action may be something short of termination or dismissal from a program, but there must be materially adverse consequences affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges under the program, such that a reasonable trier of fact could find objectively tangible harm.
17. Discrimination. Adverse action may be properly based on conduct even where that conduct is related to the disability.
18. Federal Acts: Discrimination. In actions under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, substantial deference is generally given to academic judgments.
19. Colleges and Universities: Courts. Courts are generally ill equipped, as compared with experienced educators, to determine whether a student meets a university's reasonable standards for academic and professional achievement.
20. Colleges and Universities: Courts. Evaluating performance in clinical courses is no less an academic judgment than that of any other course, and is entitled to the same deference.
21. Discrimination: Proof. A reason cannot be proved to be a pretext for discrimination unless it is shown both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason.
22. Colleges and Universities: Courts. The deference extended to academic decisions extends also to the procedural requirements surrounding those decisions.
The plaintiff, known as John Doe, brought suit under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA) 1 and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act) 2 against the defendants. Doe, representing himself pro se, alleged that the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, and several members of UNMC's staff, in their official and individual capacities, discriminated against him while he was a medical student at UNMC, because of his chronic and recurrent depressive disorder disability. The district court dismissed the staff in their individual capacities and granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants. Doe appeals.
Doe started medical school in August 2003. He was placed “On Review” shortly thereafter for weak performance in structure and development of the human body core. According to the Scholastic Evaluation Committee (SEC) guidelines, a student is placed “On Review” when the student's performance is marginal during the course of the academic year. This may include, but not be limited to, performance on a single examination (exam) or performance in a core or clerkship. Doe was again informed that he was “On Review” at the end of the first semester of his first year, for receiving a grade of “Marginal” in structure and development of the human body core.
In letters informing Doe of his “On Review” status, Doe was referred to various support services of the academic success program and of student counseling, as well as a tutoring program through the office of admissions and students. He was also encouraged to speak with Dr. Jeffrey W. Hill, the associate dean for admissions and students.
At the end of his freshman year of medical school, Doe asked to reschedule his comprehensive first-year exam. Doe's wedding had been scheduled to take place around that time. Doe asked to delay the comprehensive exam, because he decided to postpone the wedding. Doe met with Hill and explained that he was having “apprehensions about getting married,” which were causing Doe “stress.” Doe explained to Hill that his fiance would not wait until after the exam to work on issues they were having in their relationship and that this was “very difficult, stressful, and draining to me both emotionally and physically.” That difficulty was combined with Doe's “anticipatory stress” of his decision to tell his fiance he wanted to postpone the wedding—after her parents had already spent “a lot of money” on the event. Doe thought this “taxing” situation would “affect [his] performance on the comprehensive exam.” Doe was allowed to postpone the exam, which he later passed.
The comprehensive first-year exam was the first of several exams that Doe postponed until a later date. Dr. Gerald Moore, the senior associate dean for academic affairs, stated that he met with Doe on two or three occasions during Doe's first 2 years of medical school “because of his frequent delay of exams.”
According to Moore, when he asked Doe whether he was experiencing any problems, Doe stated only that he was having problems with his girlfriend. Doe never told Moore he had a disability. Doe claimed that when he postponed an exam twice in October 2004, he told Moore he was “depressed” and having trouble sleeping and concentrating.
Doe went to see a psychiatrist, whom Doe saw only once. Doe obtained prescriptions for antianxiety and antidepressant medications. The psychiatrist...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong v. Clarkson Coll.
...of Scottsbluff v. Waste Connections of Neb., supra note 4; K.M.H. v. Lutheran Gen. Hosp., supra note 4.22 See, Doe v. Board of Regents, 287 Neb. 990, 846 N.W.2d 126 (2014) ; Doe v. Board of Regents, 283 Neb. 303, 809 N.W.2d 263 (2012) ; Doe v. Board of Regents, 280 Neb. 492, 788 N.W.2d 264 ......
-
Marshall v. Eyecare Specialties, P.C. of Lincoln
...F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2008) ; RGR Co. v. Lincoln Commission on Human Rights,292 Neb. 745, 873 N.W.2d 881 (2016) ; Doe v. Board of Regents,287 Neb. 990, 846 N.W.2d 126 (2014) ; IBP, inc. v. Sands,252 Neb. 573, 563 N.W.2d 353 (1997).57 See Bailey v. Georgia–Pacific Corp., supra note 19.58 See 42......
-
RGR Co. v. Lincoln Comm'n On Human Rights
...for discrimination unless it is shown both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason. Doe v. Board of Regents, 287 Neb. 990, 846 N.W.2d 126 (2014) (applying McDonnell Douglas Corp. framework to case involving discrimination based on disability). See, also, Osborn......
- John Fastrich, & Universal Inv. Servs., Inc. v. Cont'l Gen. Ins. Co.