Reported / Citable
Background
Cory J. Bennett, a UT Austin student proceeding pro se, sued the university and several individual defendants under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that they unlawfully modified a disability accommodation that had permitted him to attend office hours without advance notice to make up labs missed during disability-related episodes.
After an office-hours session, Bennett’s professor accused him of name-calling, insulting course staff, and other inappropriate conduct. UT Austin then barred Bennett from office hours and changed his accommodation to permit make-up labs with other professors. Bennett sought damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief, and applied to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell granted Bennett leave to proceed in forma pauperis but recommended that the district judge dismiss all claims with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), before service on the defendants. The recommendation remains subject to objections and review by District Judge Robert Pitman.
The magistrate judge concluded that Bennett did not plausibly plead an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim because he did not identify his disability and his own materials showed UT Austin provided an alternative reasonable accommodation after his alleged misconduct. His ADA retaliation and Rehabilitation Act claims also failed because the pleaded facts indicated the accommodation change was based on his conduct, rather than disability-related retaliation or discrimination solely because of disability. The recommended dismissal also encompassed Bennett’s First Amendment retaliation claim, because he alleged no actual chilling of his speech, and his procedural-due-process claim, because he identified no protected interest in the particular accommodation.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff alleging failure to accommodate must plead facts establishing a qualifying disability and an unreasonable failure to accommodate known limitations.
- An alternative accommodation may defeat a claim that an institution was required to preserve the plaintiff’s preferred accommodation.
- Allegations that an accommodation was changed because of misconduct undermine ADA and Rehabilitation Act causation theories.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates the pleading hurdles for disability-accommodation claims brought by students, particularly where the complaint’s attached materials identify a non-discriminatory reason for changing an accommodation. It also underscores that in forma pauperis complaints may be screened and recommended for dismissal before defendants are served.