For accomodating students

Comparisons between actual and potential performance were insufficient alone, while comparisons of the plaintiffs' respective performance levels to those of other medical school students were unnecessary. After considering the "average person" benchmark, the court selected the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission standard for working (as compared to the life activity of learning) in which "substantially limits" was defined as occurring when a person is "significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities" (emphasis added) (29 C. Another federal district court employed a third option that is similar to the second when it concluded that the plaintiff in its case (i.e., a football player who had been declared academically ineligible to compete in intercollegiate athletics) should have his ability to learn compared to the average unimpaired student (Bowers v. NCAA, 1998, where another court held that a student's poor performance was due to a lack of motivation, preparation, and effort, rather than disability). In a related case, the Supreme Court reviewed an appeal by an applicant who was denied admission to a nursing program solely due to a serious hearing disability (Southeastern Community College v. After exploring possible options, college officials determined that there existed no reasonable accommodation that would allow the plaintiff to safely participate in or receive the benefits of the nursing pro gram given her dependence on lip reading. Federal regulations for the ADA support the "general population" approach and state that a person is substantially limited when his or her life activities are "restricted as to the conditions, manner, or duration under which they can be performed in comparison to most people"' (emphasis added) (28 C. Given these inconsistent interpretations by lower courts, it is important that Congress or appellate courts resolve the threshold standard for "substantially limits." Presumably, if testing agencies and colleges ultimately are held to the standard for "working," given that both degrees and licensure are required for employment, the demand for accommodation could increase significantly. § 794(a)); the ADA specifies only that the person with a disability be "qualified" (42 U. She had requested that she not be required to take clinical courses and that a full-time supervisor be assigned to her. This section includes a discussion of preadmission activities, the process used for making admissions decisions, judicial deference that typically is given by courts, and the use of probationary admission practices. Typically, preadmission activities include the completion of forms, the payment of fees, interviews, and testing. Importantly, the burden of showing that an appropriate alternative is available rests with the assistant secretary of education. § 104.44(c); see also University of Minnesota, 1995). Two caveats, however: Students without disabilities need not be accommodated; testing services need not provide an accommodation to a student with a disability that would "advantage" the applicant rather than simply "accommodate"' his or her disability. Where appropriate and needed accommodations are provided by testing groups (e.g., National Testing Service), it is common that college officials are alerted (e.g., with the placement of an asterisk by the score) to the fact that the test was not taken under standard conditions. The application must be completed honestly and accurately and submitted prior to deadline. § 104.42(c)), colleges may not make preadmission inquiries as to whether an applicant has a disability, although postadmission inquiries may be made on a confidential basis when the disability may require accommodation (34 C. Nonetheless, those tests that are used must accurately reflect the applicant's aptitude or achievement level (or whatever other factor the test purports to measure), rather than the applicant's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (34 C. And, admissions tests that are designed to accommodate persons with disabilities must be offered as often as are other admissions tests and be made available in facilities that are accessible (34 C. For example, one court has ruled that to require testing boards to grant accommodations without proof of qualifying disabilities would allow persons to advance to professional positions through the "proverbial back door" (Price v. When an application includes a nonstandardized score, it becomes even more important for admissions officers to thoroughly scrutinize the candidate's file. However, such units often are inadequately funded, given the growth in the number of students requesting accommodation, and seldom have experts on staff who are knowledgeable about the wide range of disabilities that colleges are now attempting to accommodate.

In ruling for the college, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was not otherwise qualified and that legitimate physical requirements at times may be necessary (see also County of Los Angeles v. Furthermore, the Court noted that Section 504 did not require affirmative action, but conceded that the distinction between accommodation and affirmative action might not always be clear.

The aforementioned section provided brief discussions of Section 504 and the ADA.

Due to these laws, all public and private colleges are required to demonstrate compliance with applicable federal mandates. With respect to postsecondary education, a qualified student with a disability is one who is able to meet a program's admission, academic, and technical standards (i.e., all essential nonacademic admissions criteria) either with or without accommodation.

In 1995, the Seventh Circuit had a case in which a law school applicant had been denied admission based in part on his low GPA and LSAT score (Mallett v.

Marquette University, 1995; see also University of Michigan, 199 1).

Leave a Reply