Student with ADHD Not Protected By ADA When Learning Does Not Substantially Impair

Herzog v. Loyola College, No. RDB-07-02416 (D. Md. October 9, 2009) (October 2009)

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted Defendant Loyola College's Motion for Summary Judgment finding the college did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") when a student ("Plaintiff") could not show that his diagnosed Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disoder ("ADHD") substantially interfered with his learning or that his ADHD caused his improper conduct.

Plaintiff received his bachelor's degree from St. Mary's College and his master's degree in education from Boston University. In the fall of 2002, Plaintiff enrolled in a master's program in clinical psychology at Defendant Loyola College. After his first semester, Plaintiff experienced difficulty focusing and sought medical assistance. He was diagnosed with ADHD and was prescribed medications. In the summer of 2003, Plaintiff's physician requested that Plaintiff receive extra time to complete written comprehensive exams. The request was granted and the school determined Plaintiff had a disability.

In the following year, Plaintiff completed his master's degree with a 3.48 GPA and enrolled in Defendant Loyola College's doctorate program. He was required to complete an internship as part of the curriculum and applied to Montana State University. He started the internship during the fall of 2006. When he submitted a New Employee Information Form to Montana State University, Plaintiff certified he was not disabled.

Plaintiff served as a graduate teaching assistant at Montana State University. At one point during the semester, Plaintiff asked out a student in his class for drinks. The student complained about the Plaintiff and stated she "felt scared to attend the class as a result." This event was reported to Defendant Loyola College and reviewed by Loyola's Professional Assessment Review Committee ("the Review Committee"). The Review Committee determined that Plaintiff's actions violated provisions of the Student Handbook and Graduate Handbook, both of which prohibit a doctoral student from pursuing a personal relationship with a student for whom the doctoral student is also a teaching assistant. The Review Committee stated that their decisions were not in any way related to Plaintiff's ADHD, but were based solely on his violation of ethical duties and school policies.

Plaintiff filed suit arguing discrimination under the ADA, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. Defendant's position was that Plaintiff was not disabled under the ADA, was not qualified for the doctoral program, was not dismissed because of his alleged disability, and that the school had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the dismissal. To prove that he had a disability protected by the ADA, Plaintiff must establish that he had a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one major life activity.

First, Plaintiff relies upon the recognized life activity of learning to prove impairment. To be substantially impaired, the court must find that the Plaintiff experiences a compromised ability to learn when compared to the ability of the average person in the general population. Here, the court found no evidence that Plaintiff's ability to learn was substantially impaired when compared to the average person. Plaintiff's academic successes prove his ability to perform at an above average level. For example, Plaintiff obtained his bachelor's degree with a double major and received above average grades while in graduate school, all before his ADHD diagnosis. Even after medication, Plaintiff reported that his study habits improved and that he was able to learn, prioritize, stay on task, and focus better. Finally, Plaintiff indicated on the Montana State University's New Employee Information Sheet that he did not have any disabilities.

Even if Plaintiff failed to establish he had a disability protected by the ADA, Plaintiff contends that Loyola faculty members believed he had a disability that substantially impacted his life activities. Thus, their termination violated the ADA. The court held that the school's awareness of Plaintiff's ADHD was insufficient to show they regarded him as disabled or that their perception was the reason for his dismissal. To be regarded as disabled under the ADA, the Plaintiff must show more than general awareness by some faculty members of his ADHD.

Lastly, the court explained that even if the Plaintiff could establish disability discrimination under the ADA, Plaintiff's claims fail because the school has presented evidence to show it had legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds for dismissal. Specifically, the school asserts it dismissed the Plaintiff because of his behavioral issues and his breach of ethical standards.