United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
OPINION AND ORDER
HOLLY
A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
This
matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment [ECF No. 34], filed by Manchester
University, Inc. The Defendant requests judgment as a matter
of law on all claims a former student in the Doctor of
Pharmacy program, Suha Mikhail, has asserted against it under
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Defendant
also seeks judgment as a matter of law on state law claims,
but the Plaintiff has “voluntarily dismiss[ed] her
state law claims” (Pl.'s Resp. 2, ECF No. 36), and
presents no argument with respect to those claims (see
generally Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n, ECF No. 37). Thus,
the remaining issue is whether the Defendant's actions in
connection with the Plaintiff's participation in the
Pharmacy Program during the fall 2015 semester, including her
eventual dismissal from the Program, violated the ADA or the
Rehabilitation Act.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
A.
Enrollment in the Doctor of Pharmacy Program Through Summer
2015
Manchester
University is an independent, liberal arts university with
campuses in North Manchester and Fort Wayne, Indiana. The
University's Doctor of Pharmacy program is a four- year
program located at the Fort Wayne campus. The Plaintiff
entered the Pharmacy Program in fall 2012. She was placed on
academic probation in fall 2012, May 2013, and December 2013.
Each time, the Plaintiff successfully remediated her grades
in accordance with the Defendant's policies. The
Plaintiff was placed on academic probation a fourth time in
May 2014 after she failed two classes. Because the Plaintiff
did not successfully remediate the failed courses within the
allotted time, she was disenrolled from all classes in fall
2014 so she could retake the courses in spring 2015. The
Plaintiff passed the classes in the spring and was removed
from academic probation.
During
this time, Bonnie O'Connell was the Director of Academic
Support. The Defendant maintained a policy that required
students to direct any requests for an accommodation due to a
disability to O'Connell. The Plaintiff and O'Connell
had collaborated to determine appropriate accommodations for
the Plaintiff's Attention Deficit Disorder and severe
social anxiety. O'Connell worked with the Plaintiff to
arrive at the following accommodations: received extended
time to complete quizzes and exams; took exams in a
distraction-reduced environment, and; professors were only
permitted to ask the Plaintiff questions during class if she
had raised her hand to ask or answer a question. Prior to the
fall 2015 semester, these accommodations were satisfactory to
address the Plaintiff's disabilities.
B.
Fall 2015 Semester
In
summer 2015, the Plaintiff suffered a concussion in an
automobile accident. According to the Plaintiff, medical
professionals told her she might temporarily experience
severe migraines and sciatic nerve pain, along with
post-concussion syndrome. She “was also told that [her]
anxiety disorder might be exacerbated by [her] injuries from
the crash.” (Mikhail Aff. ¶ 12, ECF No. 36-1.)
When
the Plaintiff returned to school for the fall 2015 semester,
she mentioned the accident to Dr. Jennifer Henriksen, the
Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs for the Pharmacy Program.
The Plaintiff did not request any additional accommodations
related to the automobile accident. O'Connell also met
with the Plaintiff at the beginning of the fall 2015 semester
to review her accommodations and determine if any changes
were necessary. The Plaintiff stated that she did not need
any additional accommodations. At another meeting to discuss
strategies for dealing with test anxiety, the Plaintiff did
not mention a need for additional accommodations. Neither did
the Plaintiff request any additional accommodations during a
third meeting with O'Connell that fall.[1]
On the
morning of Tuesday, September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff
developed a severe migraine. She was scheduled to take an
exam that day in one of the four courses she was taking that
semester-PHRM 551 IPT, Endocrine & Reproductive-taught by
Dr. Sandra Hrometz. The exam was scheduled to begin at 1:00
p.m. and end by 2:30 p.m., with additional time allotted to
the Plaintiff as an accommodation for her disabilities. The
Plaintiff did not attend class and missed the exam. At 2:41
p.m., she sent an email to Hrometz: “I had to miss the
exam this afternoon because I felt I needed to see a doctor
regarding how I am feeling.” (Sept. 1, 2015, email, ECF
No. 35-3 at 16.) The Plaintiff requested to take the exam on
September 3. Hrometz's response email asked the Plaintiff
to meet with her and with Assistant Dean Henriksen on
September 2 to discuss her absence and to review any medical
documentation related to her absence. The course syllabus
required all students to report absences for exams before the
exam started, unless there was an emergency.
During
the September 2 meeting, the Plaintiff explained that she was
absent because she decided, before the exam started, to get
treatment at a local medical clinic to address a severe
migraine and back pain that had worsened throughout the day.
Henriksen and Hrometz asked the Plaintiff why she did not
contact Hrometz before she left for the clinic. The Plaintiff
said that she believed she would be done at the clinic in
time to attend the exam. The Plaintiff also provided
Henriksen and Hrometz with documentation from the clinic.
Based on the times provided on the documentation, Henriksen
and Hrometz concluded that the Plaintiff did not register at
the clinic until 12:45 p.m., only fifteen minutes before the
exam was scheduled to begin. They informed the Plaintiff that
she should have contacted Hrometz prior to the start of the
exam, as required by the course syllabus, because her health
problems did not prevent her from doing so. The Plaintiff
indicated that she was not aware, prior to their discussion
that day, that her condition would not be considered an
emergency. Henriksen and Hrometz told the Plaintiff that her
failure to communicate prior to going to see the doctor could
result in receiving no credit for the missed exam.
Following
the meeting with Plaintiff on September 2, Hrometz met with
three professors whose material was included on the missed
exam to determine whether the Plaintiff should be permitted
to take the exam. The professors reviewed the syllabus for
PHRM 551, the Plaintiff's September 1 medical
documentation, the Plaintiff's September 1 email to
Hrometz, and notes from the September 2 meeting. The four
professors voted unanimously to consider the absence
unexcused and to assess the Plaintiff a zero for the exam.
Hrometz informed the Plaintiff of this decision in an email
dated September 10. She noted the need to follow the policy
documented in the syllabus “as a way of being
consistent and ensuring fairness to all students enrolled in
the course.” (Sept. 10, 2015, email, ECF No. 35-5 at
27.)
Believing
that she would need additional accommodations, the Plaintiff
reached out to O'Connell. In a September 27 and 28, 2015,
email exchange, the Plaintiff asked O'Connell when she
was available to talk, and if she could provide a telephone
number. O'Connell responded that she would be in Fort
Wayne on October 8, and provided an office telephone number.
O'Connell explained that she preferred to meet in person
when possible. To schedule a meeting with O'Connell the
Plaintiff was required to coordinate with Jeff Murphy (the
Administrative Assistant for Student Affairs). The Plaintiff
inquired whether there was another disability coordinator she
could talk to before then, as it was important she speak to
someone as soon as possible. O'Connell advised that there
was no other coordinator, and the Plaintiff could call her
office. The Plaintiff responded that she looked forward to
meeting with O'Connell and “discussing
disability.” (Sep. 28, 2015, email, ECF No. 35-3 at
33.)
The
Plaintiff did not meet with O'Connell on October 8, 2015,
when O'Connell was on the Fort Wayne campus. After an
exchange of emails on October 13 and 14, 2015, O'Connell
advised that she would be on campus Thursday, October 22, and
that the Plaintiff should coordinate with Jeff Murphy to
schedule a meeting time.
C.
Dismissal From the Pharmacy Program
On
December 10, 2015, Henriksen, as the Assistant Dean for
Academic Affairs, notified the Plaintiff by letter that she
was being dismissed from future study in the Pharmacy Program
because she had received a grade of less than seventy percent
in four different courses that semester.[2] In accordance
with the Pharmacy Program's academic policies on
remediation, this required dismissal from the program. ...