1. Zukle v. Regents of the University of California, 166 F.3d 1041 (9 th Cir. 1999) LSJ 434/CHID 434 Winter 2007 Sherrie Brown

2. 2 FACTS Zukle was a Med student UC Davis. She had difficulty from the beginning and was placed on academic probation requiring her to retake certain courses, be tested for learning disability and placed on split curriculum. Her evaluation showed that she had a reading disability that caused her to be a slow reader and the med school offered all the accommodations suggested by the UC Davis resource center. However, she failed the USMLE exam after several attempts & continued to receive failing grades in clinical work. Med School Promotion Board voted to dismiss her for failure to meet academic standards. She appealed that decision but it was upheld. She sues under ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. District Court ruled against her stating that she failed to meet the standards with reasonable accommodations and therefore she was not otherwise qualified. She appealed.

3. 3 ISSUES First: –Should court give deference to academic decisions made by the school? Second: –Did US Davis violate ADA or 504 when it dismissed a student with learning disabilities for failure of student to meet academic standards?

4. 4 HOLDING First: –Yes. Second: –No.

5. 5 REASONING Issue 1 Courts are “particularly ill-equipped to evaluate academic performance.” However, courts do have responsibility to ensure that educational decisions on whether student is otherwise qualified or whether accommodation is reasonable is not used to impede obligations under ADA and 504 and disguise “truly discriminatory requirements.” Schools must seek suitable means of reasonably accommodating and must have a record of doing so. However, once schools have done this, courts will defer to the academic decisions.

6. 6 REASONING Issue 2 Zukle has burden of showing existence of a reasonable accommodation that would allow her to meet the essential eligibility requirements. Then UC Davis has the burden to show why this would fundamentally alter the nature of the program. Court evaluates the request in light of the totality of the circumstances. She does not show that her additional requests for accommodation are “reasonable” given that the requests will interfere with the clinical expectations & have never been offered to others. UC Davis convinces the court that to allow the accommodations would sacrifice the integrity of the program.

7. 7 SIGNIFICANCE Explains the burden shifting of proving that the school has a duty to provide student with the requested accommodations. Like, McGregor, reiterates the deference to the postsecondary institution when question involves academic integrity.