A podiatry student diagnosed with panic attacks has sued, alleging the school violated disability law by not exempting her from its three-attempt limit on taking a crucial qualifying exam.
She says the limit makes her too anxious to perform, so the school must accommodate her disability by removing the limit in her case.
A California federal judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit and ordered the school to let the student keep taking the exam while the suit continues.
Samuel Merritt University (SMU) is a health sciences institution in Oakland, California.
From 2009 to 2012, a student suing anonymously as Jane Doe was enrolled in its California School of Podiatric Medicine, pursuing a Doctor in Podiatric Medicine degree.
After Doe was diagnosed with a generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder with agoraphobia, SMU granted Doe testing accommodations near the end of her second year. It let her take exams in a separate room and gave her time-and-a-half the allotted time.
School Has Three-Strikes Rule
Before podiatric-medicine students can start third-year clinical rotations, they must pass Part I of the American Podiatric Medical Licensing Examinations.
SMU gives students only three chances to do so. A student who fails a third time is dismissed from SMU.
Doe failed Part I three times. SMU dismissed her. She challenged the dismissal by filing a grievance.
In addition to asking to be reinstated, Doe asked for the accommodation of having no restriction on how many times she could take Part I.
She said the fact the exam was make or break increased her anxiety so much she couldnt perform. While her grievance was pending, Doe took Part I a fourth time. She failed it again. SMU then denied her grievance.
Doe sued SMU on several grounds, including her claim that it violated state and federal disability-bias laws by not accommodating her disability. SMU asked the judge to dismiss Does suit because she didnt exhaust her administrative remedies first by completing its internal grievance procedure before suing.
The judge refused, finding it was for a court, not the universitys grievance procedures, to decide failure-to-accommodate claims.
Doe asked for a preliminary injunction ordering SMU to grant her inactive student status so she can keep trying to pass the test while the suit is ongoing.
To grant the order, the judge had to find shes likely to win her case. To win, Doe must show she has a disability as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines it: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
Is Test-Taking a Major Life Activity?
SMU argued Doe isnt likely to win as she cant show test-takings a major life activity. But the judge found Doe raised serious questions that it might be, given that:
Congress recently amended the ADA to make it clear disability should be interpreted broadly
a 1997 case from New York found test-taking is a major life activity, and
Since 1997, as the judge observed, the central role of test-taking in our society has only increased.
The judge also balanced the potential harms of issuing the injunction and found they favored Doe.
t may very well be, she wrote, that at the end of the day the ruling will be that Defendant did not violate the ADA by enforcing its three strikes rule against Plaintiff. If so, SMU wont be harmed by having let her take the test. Doe, on the other hand, could suffer irreparable harm by possibly having to wait years to take a test that shes ready to take now.
The judge refused to dismiss the case and ordered the parties to confer on what the injunction allowing Doe inactive-student status should say.
Doe v. Samuel Merritt Univ., No. C-13-00007 JSC, 2013 WL 428637 & 2013 WL 497903 (N.D. Cal. 2/8/13).
She says the limit makes her too anxious to perform, so the school must accommodate her disability by removing the limit in her case.
A California federal judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit and ordered the school to let the student keep taking the exam while the suit continues.
Samuel Merritt University (SMU) is a health sciences institution in Oakland, California.
From 2009 to 2012, a student suing anonymously as Jane Doe was enrolled in its California School of Podiatric Medicine, pursuing a Doctor in Podiatric Medicine degree.
After Doe was diagnosed with a generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder with agoraphobia, SMU granted Doe testing accommodations near the end of her second year. It let her take exams in a separate room and gave her time-and-a-half the allotted time.
School Has Three-Strikes Rule
Before podiatric-medicine students can start third-year clinical rotations, they must pass Part I of the American Podiatric Medical Licensing Examinations.
SMU gives students only three chances to do so. A student who fails a third time is dismissed from SMU.
Doe failed Part I three times. SMU dismissed her. She challenged the dismissal by filing a grievance.
In addition to asking to be reinstated, Doe asked for the accommodation of having no restriction on how many times she could take Part I.
She said the fact the exam was make or break increased her anxiety so much she couldnt perform. While her grievance was pending, Doe took Part I a fourth time. She failed it again. SMU then denied her grievance.
Doe sued SMU on several grounds, including her claim that it violated state and federal disability-bias laws by not accommodating her disability. SMU asked the judge to dismiss Does suit because she didnt exhaust her administrative remedies first by completing its internal grievance procedure before suing.
The judge refused, finding it was for a court, not the universitys grievance procedures, to decide failure-to-accommodate claims.
Doe asked for a preliminary injunction ordering SMU to grant her inactive student status so she can keep trying to pass the test while the suit is ongoing.
To grant the order, the judge had to find shes likely to win her case. To win, Doe must show she has a disability as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines it: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
Is Test-Taking a Major Life Activity?
SMU argued Doe isnt likely to win as she cant show test-takings a major life activity. But the judge found Doe raised serious questions that it might be, given that:
Congress recently amended the ADA to make it clear disability should be interpreted broadly
a 1997 case from New York found test-taking is a major life activity, and
Since 1997, as the judge observed, the central role of test-taking in our society has only increased.
The judge also balanced the potential harms of issuing the injunction and found they favored Doe.
t may very well be, she wrote, that at the end of the day the ruling will be that Defendant did not violate the ADA by enforcing its three strikes rule against Plaintiff. If so, SMU wont be harmed by having let her take the test. Doe, on the other hand, could suffer irreparable harm by possibly having to wait years to take a test that shes ready to take now.
The judge refused to dismiss the case and ordered the parties to confer on what the injunction allowing Doe inactive-student status should say.
Doe v. Samuel Merritt Univ., No. C-13-00007 JSC, 2013 WL 428637 & 2013 WL 497903 (N.D. Cal. 2/8/13).
