Guckenberger v. Boston University
974 F.Supp. 106, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12727, 7 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 484 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A university violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act when it imposes eligibility criteria for accommodations that tend to screen out disabled students without demonstrating that such criteria are necessary. Additionally, a university must engage in a reasoned, deliberative process, free from stereotypes, before concluding that a requested academic modification, such as a course substitution, would fundamentally alter its program.
Facts:
- Before 1995, Boston University (BU) actively recruited students with learning disabilities and, through its Learning Disabilities Support Services (LDSS), provided various accommodations, including occasional course substitutions for foreign language and mathematics requirements.
- In the spring of 1995, BU Provost Jon Westling discovered this practice of granting course substitutions, became chagrined that it occurred without central administration approval, and ordered it to cease immediately.
- Westling, who held and publicly expressed stereotypes about learning-disabled students being 'fakers' (epitomized by his fabricated 'Somnolent Samantha' story), personally took control of the accommodations process with an assistant, neither of whom had expertise in learning disabilities.
- In the fall of 1995, Westling instituted new, stricter documentation policies requiring that evaluations be no more than three years old and be performed only by physicians, clinical psychologists, or licensed psychologists.
- In December 1995, just before final exams, BU sent letters informing all registered learning-disabled students of these new requirements with a short deadline, creating widespread chaos, confusion, and emotional distress.
- As a result of the new policies, many students, including the named plaintiffs, were told their existing, previously accepted documentation was inadequate and that they needed to undergo expensive re-testing on short notice.
- Plaintiff Avery LaBrecque, who had been told before enrolling that a foreign language substitution was an option, had her formal request for one denied under the new policy.
- Plaintiff Scott Greeley went nearly his entire first semester without receiving any requested accommodations, causing him severe stress and negatively impacting his grades and scholarship.
Procedural Posture:
- A class of students with learning disabilities and/or Attention Deficit Disorder sued Boston University in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and state law, along with a claim for breach of contract.
- Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of the class and compensatory damages for the individual named plaintiffs.
- The court certified a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) for the purposes of injunctive and declaratory relief only.
- The case proceeded to a two-week bench trial before the District Judge.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a university violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by implementing stringent documentation requirements for learning-disabled students and imposing a blanket refusal to allow course substitutions without engaging in a reasoned, deliberative process to determine if such accommodations would fundamentally alter its academic program?
Opinions:
Majority - Saris, District Judge
Yes. A university's policies and procedures for accommodating students with learning disabilities violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act when they impose unnecessarily burdensome eligibility criteria or are based on stereotypes rather than reasoned academic judgment.\n\nReasoning: The court found BU's policies and their implementation violated federal law in several key ways. First, the documentation requirements, as initially implemented, illegally 'screened out' or 'tended to screen out' students with disabilities. The requirement for re-testing every three years for learning disorders like dyslexia was not 'necessary,' as these conditions do not change in adulthood. Similarly, the strict limits on evaluator credentials (initially excluding doctorates in education) were overly restrictive and not proven necessary for diagnosing learning disorders. However, for ADD/ADHD, which can change over time and has co-morbid conditions, the court found these requirements were necessary.\n\nSecond, the administration of the new policy during the 1995-1996 school year was discriminatory. It was implemented abruptly without warning and was driven by President Westling's 'uninformed stereotypes' that learning-disabled students were 'lazy fakers.' This process caused delays and denials of accommodations, creating a discriminatory effect.\n\nThird, BU's blanket refusal to consider course substitutions for its foreign language requirement was not a legitimate academic decision. Instead, it was substantially motivated by Westling's stereotypes and was made without a diligent, reasoned process as required by the precedent in Wynne v. Tufts University. BU failed to consider alternatives or consult with experts and faculty to determine if substitutions would fundamentally alter its liberal arts program, making the refusal an arbitrary 'ipse dixit.' For the mathematics requirement, however, plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence that a course substitution was a reasonable accommodation.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in disability law for higher education, clarifying the balance between a university's academic freedom and its obligations under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. It establishes that while universities may set academic standards, their decisions cannot be based on stereotypes or implemented without a diligent, reasoned process. The ruling reinforces that institutions bear the burden of proving that burdensome documentation requirements are 'necessary' and that a refusal to grant an academic modification is the result of a 'professional, academic judgment.' This precedent significantly strengthens protections for students with learning disabilities by holding universities accountable for the rationale and implementation of their accommodation policies.
