Guckenberger v. Boston University
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8469, 8 F. Supp.2d 82, 9 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 228 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An academic institution satisfies its duty to provide reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if it engages in a reasoned, deliberative process to determine that a requested modification would fundamentally alter the nature of an academic program. Courts will grant significant deference to the institution's professional academic judgment, provided that the decision-making process was rational and not a pretext for discrimination.
Facts:
- Boston University's (BU) College of Arts and Sciences required students to complete a foreign language sequence to obtain a liberal arts degree.
- A class of students with learning disabilities requested to substitute other courses for the foreign language requirement as an accommodation for their disabilities.
- Initially, BU's President, Jon Westling, denied this request without engaging in a deliberative process and was found to be motivated in part by uninformed stereotypes.
- Following a court order, BU tasked the existing Dean's Advisory Committee, composed of eleven faculty members from diverse disciplines, to deliberate on the issue.
- The Committee met seven times over two months to consider the role of the foreign language requirement in the liberal arts curriculum.
- The Committee considered alternative proposals and solicited input from current students before making its decision.
- The Committee produced an eight-page report concluding that the foreign language requirement was fundamental to the liberal arts degree at BU and recommended against allowing substitutions.
- President Westling accepted the committee's recommendation.
Procedural Posture:
- A class of students with learning disabilities sued Boston University in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging its policies violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
- Following a bench trial, the district court held that the students' request for course substitutions for the foreign language requirement was a 'reasonable modification.'
- The court found that BU had failed to prove the substitution would be a fundamental alteration because its initial refusal was not based on a 'reasoned deliberation' and was motivated by stereotypes.
- The court issued an order requiring BU to create a 'deliberative procedure,' including a faculty committee, to consider whether modifying the foreign language requirement would fundamentally alter its liberal arts program.
- The court ordered BU to report back on the committee's decision and reasoning.
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 an academic institution satisfy its duty to provide reasonable accommodation under the ADA when, following a court-ordered deliberative process, its faculty committee concludes that allowing course substitutions for a mandatory foreign language requirement would fundamentally alter the nature of its liberal arts program?
Opinions:
Majority - Saris, District Judge
Yes. An academic institution satisfies its duty under the ADA when it engages in a rational deliberative process to determine that a requested accommodation would fundamentally alter its academic program. The court's role is not to determine whether the university's academic judgment is correct, but whether the institution followed a professional, deliberative process to reach a rationally justifiable conclusion. Applying the test from Wynne v. Tufts University, the court found that BU's process met the required standard. First, BU presented undisputed facts about its deliberative process: a committee of eminent faculty from diverse disciplines met multiple times, discussed the unique qualities and purpose of the foreign language requirement, and considered alternatives. Second, the court found the committee's conclusion—that foreign language study is indispensable for developing multicultural awareness and providing 'insider access to other cultures'—was a professional, academic judgment. The court grants great deference to such judgments and will not override them unless they represent a substantial departure from accepted academic norms, which was not the case here, even if other universities have different policies.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of judicial deference to the academic judgments of universities regarding curriculum requirements under the ADA. It clarifies that the legal inquiry focuses on the integrity of the university's decision-making process rather than the substantive merit of its academic conclusion. By upholding BU's decision, the case establishes a precedent that as long as a university undertakes a 'diligent assessment' and reaches a 'rationally justifiable' conclusion that a requirement is essential, courts are unlikely to intervene. This raises the bar for plaintiffs, who must now challenge the deliberative process itself as a pretext or a sham, rather than simply arguing that the academic requirement is unnecessary or that other schools permit substitutions.
