Lexplug logoLexplug

Michael Argenyi v. Creighton University

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
703 F.3d 441 (2013)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a 'necessary' accommodation is one that provides a disabled individual with 'meaningful access' to a public accommodation, affording them an equal opportunity to gain the same benefit as non-disabled individuals, rather than merely preventing their effective exclusion.


Facts:

  • Michael Argenyi, a profoundly deaf individual, was admitted to Creighton University Medical School.
  • Before enrolling, Argenyi informed Creighton he would require Communication Access Real-time Transcription (CART) for lectures and a cued speech interpreter for labs, accommodations he had used successfully as an undergraduate.
  • Argenyi's doctors wrote to Creighton supporting his need for these specific visual aids for effective communication.
  • Creighton denied these requests and instead provided only an FM system, which transmits sound directly to Argenyi's cochlear implants.
  • After two weeks, Argenyi found the FM system inadequate, causing him extreme fatigue and preventing him from understanding lectures. An expert later found the FM system actually reduced Argenyi's speech perception.
  • During his first two years, Argenyi borrowed over $114,000 to pay for CART and interpreters himself.
  • For his second-year clinical courses involving patient interaction, Creighton refused to allow Argenyi to use an interpreter, even one he paid for himself.
  • Unable to effectively communicate with patients, Argenyi took a leave of absence from medical school pending resolution of his legal claims.

Procedural Posture:

  • Michael Argenyi filed a lawsuit against Creighton University in the United States District Court, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
  • Both Argenyi and Creighton filed motions for summary judgment.
  • The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Creighton University, concluding Argenyi had not shown his requested accommodations were 'necessary.'
  • The district court also denied Creighton's motion to recover its legal costs.
  • Argenyi, the appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
  • Creighton, the appellee, cross-appealed the denial of its motion for costs.

Locked

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 Title III of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by refusing to provide a deaf medical student's requested auxiliary aids, such as CART and interpreters, when the university provided alternative aids and the student was still able to pass his courses?


Opinions:

Majority - Murphy, Circuit Judge

Yes. A university's refusal to provide a student's requested auxiliary aids may violate the ADA and Rehabilitation Act if the provided alternatives fail to afford the student 'meaningful access' or an 'equal opportunity' to gain the same educational benefit as non-disabled peers. The correct legal standard is not whether the student was 'effectively excluded' or able to pass courses, but whether the accommodations provided a 'like experience' to that of other students. The district court erred by disregarding Argenyi's affidavit, which was corroborated by his doctors' letters, expert testimony, and the substantial personal loans he took to secure necessary services. The evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Creighton denied Argenyi an equal opportunity to benefit from medical school. The lower court's reliance on PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin was misplaced because the standard for 'necessary' accommodations in an educational context requires ensuring an equal opportunity, not merely preventing an experience from being 'beyond [one's] capacity.'



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the standard for 'necessary' accommodations under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act in higher education. It explicitly rejects a minimalist interpretation that would only require an institution to prevent a student's complete failure or exclusion. By adopting a 'meaningful access' and 'equal opportunity' standard, the court mandates that accommodations must provide a disabled student with a 'like experience' to their non-disabled peers, shifting the focus from bare access to the quality and equality of the educational experience. This precedent strengthens the position of students seeking specific, effective accommodations and places a higher burden on universities to justify the denial of such requests.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Michael Argenyi v. Creighton University (2013)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"