Introduction
In this case, Frances Davis applied for a nursing course at the Southeastern Community College. This institution is one of the American colleges and universities that receive state funds to run their programs. Davis had a hearing disability at the time of application, and could only depend on lip-reading to understand speech. Her application was denied (Rothstein, 2007). She requested the college to reconsider its decision, but again, the college declined. Dissatisfied, Davis filed a legal suit in the US District Court at the Eastern District, North Carolina. However, the court ruled against Davis. Davis decided to appeal the case at the US Court of Appeals (Turnbull & Rutherford, 2009). She accused the college of discriminating against her because she was deaf (Rothstein, 2007). In its defense, the college argued that Davis had not qualified for the course under the statute because even if the college admitted her, it was possible that she could not have completed the course satisfactorily because her condition did not allow her to participate in the clinical training program (Rothstein, 2007). The court of appeal overturned the decision of the lower court and ruled in favor of Davis.
Legal question/issue
Do the provisions of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prevent an institution of higher learning (southeastern community college) from including physical qualifications as an admission requirement?
Secondly, does section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act require community colleges to embark on “affirmative action” that would allow the college to provide special attention for ensuring effective oral communication?
Decision
However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court, although it did not dispute the facts findings of the district court. It ruled that section 504 of the Act required the petitioner to reconsider Davis’ applications for admission without consideration of her physical condition (Rothstein, 2007). The court considered that for the college to determine whether a student “otherwise qualified”, it ought to have considered only the “technical and academic qualifications” and not physical qualifications. Moreover, the Court of Appeals argued that section 504 of the Act required the college to undertake an “affirmative conduct” to modify its programs and allow disabled students to undertake their dream courses (Brinckerhoff, 2002).
Holding
In its ruling, the District Court held that the college’s refusal to admit Davis based on her physical condition did not show a violation of her rights under section 504. In addition, it held that both the history and language of the Act did not prevent the college from requiring reasonable physical qualifications when admitting new students.
On reversing the ruling of the District Court, the Court of Appeals held that the lower court had erred in its ruling because it had considered physical conditions of the student in determining her qualifications rather than confining the inquiry on academic and technical qualifications (Rothstein, 2007). Secondly, the Court of Appeals held that the language of section 504 of the Act required the college to undertake affirmative conduct in modifying its programs to accommodate disabled students even when catering to the physical conditions seems costly.
Rule or Test
In reaching its decision, the court of appeals used the test on whether a college funded by the government ought to carry an affirmative action and whether the court ought to consider physical conditions as one of the admission criteria. In addition, the court used the test on “otherwise qualification” to determine whether the college had violated Davis’ rights and whether the lower court had erred in its ruling.
Previous decisions of the lower courts
The District Court issued a ruling in favor of the college and against Davis, the complainant. The court argued that the denial of admission at the university based on physical disability was not a violation of Davis’ rights under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. It argued that under the Act, the term “otherwise qualified” means that Davis’ condition prevented her from performing well in her clinical training as well her dream profession. The court had argued that under section 504, Davis could not be considered as being “otherwise a qualified handicapped individual”.
The rationale of the ruling by the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals arrived at its decision based on the general idea that Davis’ rights, as a handicapped person, are protected under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Hauben, 2006). This general idea holds that for total protection of the individual’s rights, the college ought to have undertaken an “affirmative conduct” in restructuring its programs, even though the Act did not require colleges to undertake an “affirmative act”.
Scope of holding
The Court of Appeals suggested that undertaking an “affirmative conduct” by an institution of higher learning is limited to community colleges that receive federal funding. Other institutions in other categories would otherwise not be affected by the ruling.
Unresolved questions/issues
When interpreting section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, some questions still need to be addressed. For instance, it is important to determine when an individual can meet all the specifications and requirements of a program “in spite” of the physical disability and thus be considered as “otherwise qualified” for the program (Thomas, 2005). Secondly, the question of where the requirements for reasonable accommodation fall in the interpretation of the Act need to be addressed.
References
Brinckerhoff, L. C. (2002). Promoting Access, Accommodations, and Independence for College Students with Learning Disabilities. J Learn Disabil, 25(7), 417-429
Hauben, R. B. (2006). Campus Handicap–Disabled Students and the Right to Higher Education–Southeastern Community College v. Davis. New York University Rev. L. & Soc. Change 9(163), 179-180
Rothstein, L. (2007). Millennials and Disability Law: Revisiting Southeastern Community College v. Davis. Journal of College and University Law, 34(1), 34-39
Thomas, S. B. (2005). College Students and Disability Law. J Spec Educ, 33(4), 248-257
Turnbull, H., & Rutherford, III. (2009). Free Appropriate Public Education: The Law and Children with Disabilities. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co.