Steven Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine
1991 WL 64869, 932 F.2d 19, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 6212 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, an academic institution has an affirmative duty to seek reasonable accommodations for a handicapped student, and to prevail on summary judgment, it must produce an undisputed factual record showing it made a reasoned, professional academic judgment that no such accommodation was available.
Facts:
- Steven Wynne was admitted to Tufts University School of Medicine in 1983 under an affirmative action program.
- During his first year, Wynne struggled with written multiple-choice examinations and failed eight of fifteen courses.
- Despite a policy of dismissal after five failures, Tufts' dean allowed Wynne to repeat the first year.
- At Tufts' request and expense, Wynne underwent a neuropsychological evaluation, which revealed a learning disability (later diagnosed as dyslexia) that impaired his ability to process information in the format of multiple-choice exams.
- Wynne repeated the first-year program with some assistance, such as tutors and taped lectures, but was still required to take written multiple-choice exams.
- After repeating the year, Wynne failed Biochemistry for a third time and was dismissed from the medical school in September 1985.
- Wynne's claim of discrimination is based solely on Tufts' refusal to offer an alternative to its written multiple-choice examinations.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Wynne sued Tufts University in federal district court, alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Tufts University, holding that Wynne was not 'otherwise qualified' because he could not meet the school's requirements.
- Wynne, as the appellant, appealed to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which reversed the district court's decision.
- Tufts University, as the appellee, successfully petitioned for a rehearing en banc before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
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 meet its duty under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by dismissing a handicapped student for failing to meet academic requirements, without providing evidence that it conscientiously considered and reasonably rejected possible accommodations for the student's handicap?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge
No. An academic institution does not meet its duty under the Rehabilitation Act by merely asserting that a student failed to meet its standards. The inquiry into whether a student is 'otherwise qualified' inherently includes a determination of whether a reasonable accommodation could be made. Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Alexander v. Choate and School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline, a university cannot simply rely on a student's academic failures. It must demonstrate that it engaged in a reasoned, professional academic judgment regarding accommodations. Tufts' evidence, a conclusory affidavit from the Dean stating that multiple-choice exams are essential, was insufficient because it failed to mention any consideration of alternatives, the process of that consideration, or who was involved. To grant summary judgment, the university must present a factual record showing it conscientiously explored alternatives and rationally concluded they would lower academic standards or require substantial program alteration.
Dissenting - Breyer, Chief Judge
Yes. While the majority's statement of the law is correct, its application to the facts is flawed. The Dean's affidavit was sufficient to grant summary judgment for Tufts. The affidavit stated that, in the professional judgment of its educators, multiple-choice exams are the 'best' method for testing the skills necessary to be a physician, which implies a consideration and rejection of alternatives. Courts should give great deference to such academic judgments, especially when the task, like designing tests, is quintessentially academic and not a science. Requiring universities to produce more extensive, court-friendly evidence, like statistical studies, improperly shifts decision-making power from expert educators to judges and juries and away from the professional, subjective judgment that is at the heart of academia.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the burden on academic institutions under the Rehabilitation Act when a student requests an accommodation. It establishes that the 'otherwise qualified' analysis is not separate from, but includes, the duty to consider reasonable accommodations. The decision sets a higher evidentiary standard for universities seeking summary judgment, requiring them to create a factual record of their deliberative process, rather than relying on conclusory statements of academic necessity. This holding strengthens protections for students with disabilities by ensuring that a university's refusal to accommodate is based on a genuine, professional evaluation, not mere convenience or reflexive adherence to tradition.
