CHIN v. UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE & DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY et al
Filing
41
OPINION. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 5/9/16. (cm )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
IRIS CHN,
Civil Action No.: 14-1332 (JLL)
Plaintiff,
OPINION
V.
RUTGERS, THE STATE uNIVERSITY OF
NEW JERSEY; RUTGERS NEW JERSEY
MEDICAL SCHOOL; JAMES HILL, Ph. D.;
ABC CORP., INC.; JOHN DOES; JANE
DOES,
Defendants.
LINARES, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court by way of a motion for summary judgment filed by
Defendants Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey and Rutgers New Jersey Medical School
(“NJMS” or the “School”) and James M. Hill, Ph.D. (“Dr. Hill”) (collectively, “Defendants”).
(ECF No. 32). Plaintiff, a former medical student at NJMS, has opposed this motion (ECF No.
38), and Defendants have replied to same (ECF No. 39). The Court decides this motion without
oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons stated herein, the
Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in full.
BACKGROUND
1
Plaintiff Iris Chin enrolled as a first-year medical student at NJMS in the beginning of the
2004-05 academic term.
(ECF No. 32-2, SOf
¶ 1).’ It was during her first year in medical
school that Plaintiff began suffering from severe depression accompanied by suicidal thoughts.
(ECF No. 1, Compi.
¶ 12). In 200$, while still enrolled at NJMS, Plaintiff was diagnosed with
bipolar disorder. (SOF
¶ 2). Plaintiffs tenure at NJMS was not a particularly smooth one;
although she achieved positive reviews from her clinical advisors and ultimately completed the
first three years of the School’s four-year program, she took several medical leaves of absences
and had difficulty passing nationally required medical school examinations and matching with a
residency program. In 2012, the School dismissed Plaintiff on account of her failure to comply
with its academic policies.
Plaintiff now alleges that the School failed to provide her reasonable accommodations on
account of her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the
Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”). The
relevant facts are as follows.
A. NJMS’s Academic and Promotion Policies
At the time of her matriculation into the School, Plaintiff received a copy of NJMS’s
academic polices and was instructed by the School to review same. (SOF
¶ 6). As discussed in
more detail below, included in NJMS’s policies are requirements relating to the successful
completion of the United States Medical Licensing Exam (“USMLE”)—a three part examination
for medical licensure in the United States—as well as a Promotion Policy which “gover[ns] the
academic standing and promotion of NJMS students.” (Id.
of Dr. Hill, “Hill Decl.,”
¶J 7-17; ECF No. 32-3, Declaration
¶ 5, Ex. B at 1).
ECF No. 32-3 is Defendant’s Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material facts (“SOF”). To the
extent that Plaintiffs Responsive Statement (ECF No. 3 8-1) admits to those facts deemed undisputed in Defendant’s
SOF, the Court will cite only to “SOF” with corresponding paragraph numbers.
2
With regards to the USMLE, the School requires all medical students to “sit and record a
score for USMLE Step 1 after the satisfactory completion of the second year and prior to starting
third year.” (Id.
¶ 8).
examination. (Id.
The School also limits the amount of times a student may sit for the Step 1
¶ 9). A student who fails on her first attempt to pass the Step-i exam “will be
given one more opportunity to pass the examination,” and this second attempt “must be made
within six months of the date that NJMS receives notification of the failing score on the first
attempt.” (Id.
¶ 10). If a student fails to comply with the Step-I Policy “and/or fail[s] to pass
[the USMLE Step-i exam] on the second attempt, [the student] will be dismissed from NJMS.”
(Id.
¶ 10).
The School maintains similar standards with respect to the two Step-2 exams, which all
medical students are required to sit for after completing their third year requirements. (Id.
¶IJ 13-
17). That is, NJMS students are permitted a maximum of two attempts to record a passing score
for the Step-2 Clinical Skills (“CS”) exam and the Step-2 Clinical Knowledge (“CK”) exam (the
“Step-2 Policy”). (Id.
¶
14). Students who fail to comply with the Step-2 Policy are subject to
dismissal from the School. (Id.
¶
15).
In addition to adhering to the USMLE Policies, NJMS students are required to adhere to its
Promotion Policy. (Id.
¶ 5; Hill DecI., Ex. B). Pursuant to that Policy, all medical students “are
expected to enroll every semester after the first term of their degree program and must complete
all requirements for graduation in six years or less, excluding leave(s) of absence.
Year Graduation Policy”). (Id.
.
.“
(the “Six
¶ 18). failure to comply with the Six-Year Graduation Policy is
grounds for dismissal from the School. (kL
¶ 19). Additionally, the School maintains a Three
Year Clinical Completion Policy, which provides that all medical students “must complete the
clinical portion of their training, including passage of the
3
.
.
.
USMLE Step 2 CK and USMLE
Step 2 CS within three academic years, exclusive of approved leaves of absence
student will be dismissed.” (Id.
.
.
.
or the
¶ 22).
Notwithstanding the above graduation requirements, a student may make a written appeal of
these policies to the Committee on Student Affairs (“CSA”). (Hill Dccl., Ex. B, §VI.B.). A
student may further appeal any decisions rendered by the CSA to the Dean of NJMS within ten
(10) days afler a decision is rendered by the CSA. (Id.).
B. Plaintiffs Academic Performance
During her first year at NJM$, Plaintiff began suffering from severe depression with suicidal
thoughts. (ECf No. 1, Complaint, “Compl.”
12). When Plaintiff failed a number of classes
¶
her first year, the School permitted Plaintiff a four-month leave of absence (“LOA”) from April
to August 2005, as well as placement in the following year’s incoming class. (Id.
¶
24-25).
Upon returning for another attempt at the first-year course load, Plaintiff again failed a first-year
course and was permitted remediation by the School. (Id.
¶
26).
In addition to failing this
course, in 2010, Plaintiff failed national exams at the end of two clinical rotations. (Id.). When
Plaintiff failed these two clinical programs, Dr. Hill, the Associate Dean for Student Affairs (Hill
Dccl.
¶
1) met with Plaintiff to discuss study strategies to ensure that Plaintiff would pass these
exams on her next attempt. (SOF
¶ 27).
2
Afier completing her first two years of medical school, Plaintiff was required to sit for the
USMLE Step-l exam. (Id.
¶ 33).
On May 7, 2007 the Committee of Student Affairs (“CSA”)
granted Plaintiff a request for a six-week extension to sit for the USMLE Step-i exam. (Id.).
However, Plaintiff did not sit for the Step-i exam at the expiration of her six-week extension.
(Id.
¶
34).
Plaintiff testified that she did not sit for the exam because she “had difficulty
2
Dr. Hill’s Certification states that he “ha[s] been the Acting Associate Dean or Associate Dean for Student Affairs
at [NJMSJ since 2009.” (Hill Decl. ¶ 1). It is unclear whether Dr. Hill was acting in the capacity of Acting
Associate Dean or Associate Dean when he met with Plaintiff in 2010 to discuss study strategies.
•
•
4
concentrating” and “difficulty studying at the time.” (ECf No. 32-5, Declaration of William F.
Maderer, Esq., Ex. B, Pl.’s Dep. Tr. 41:10-16). Thereafter, the CSA suggested that Plaintiff take
a one-year medical LOA to give her sufficient time to prepare for the Step-i exam. (SOF
¶ 34).
When Plaintiff returned from her one-year LOA, she requested yet another extension of time to
take the Step-l exam—a request which the CSA denied. (Id.
¶J 36-37). Plaintiff appealed the
CSA’s denial of her extension request to Dr. Robert L. Johnson (“Dean Johnson”), the Dean of
NJMS (ECF No. 3 2-4, Declaration of Dr. Johnson, “Johnson DecI.”
Plaintiffs request to delay taking the Step-i exam. (Id.
¶ 1) who ultimately granted
¶ 38). After receiving the benefit of a
year’s LOA and a further extension of time to prepare for Step-i, Plaintiff sat for the exam but
did not receive a passing score. (IcL
¶ 39).
Thereafter, the School permitted Plaintiff to take a four-month academic remediation LOA
and required her to sit for the Step-i exam for the second time by June 24, 2009. (Id.
¶ 40). On
June 1, 2009, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to sit for the Step-i exam, which the CSA
denied.
(Id.
¶ 41-42). Once again, however, Dean Johnson reversed the CSA’s denial and
permitted Plaintiff nearly two additional months to prepare for her second attempt at the Step-i
exam. (Id.
¶ 43). On August 23, 2009, Plaintiff sat for and failed the Step-i exam for the second
time. (Id.
¶ 44). Pursuant to the School’s USMLE Step-i Policy, discussed above, Plaintiffs
failure to record a passing score upon her second attempt at the Step-i exam constituted grounds
for dismissal from the School. (Id.
¶ 45). Plaintiff, at the suggestion and with the assistance of
Dr. Hill, appealed the School’s Step-i Policy and requested that she be given a third attempt at
passing the Step-i exam. (Id.
¶ 47). When the CSA initially denied Plaintiffs request to waive
the Step-i Policy, Dr. Hill helped Plaintiff appeal the CSA denial to Dean Johnson. (Id.
¶ 49).
Ultimately, Dean Johnson granted Plaintiffs request to sit for the Step-i exam for the third time.
5
(Id.
¶
50). Moreover, Dean. Johnson gave Plaintiff an additional eight weeks to prepare for the
exam, and Dr. Hill helped secure a student tutor for Plaintiffs exam preparations. (Id.
Plaintiff passed the Step-i exam on her third attempt. (Id.
¶J 50-51).
¶ 52).
In January 2011, upon conducting a degree audit of all NJMS students, Dr. Hill and Ms. Julie
F. Ferguson—the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs, Director of the Registrar’s Office and
Director of Clinical Electives—determined that, accounting for Plaintiff’s LOAs, she was not on
pace to complete her schooling in accordance with the School’s Promotion Policy. (ECf No. 392, Ferguson Dccl.
¶J 8, 12). Specifically, Dr. Hill and Ms. Ferguson determined that the Plaintiff
was not on track to complete the clinical portion of her training and pass the USMLE Step-2
exams within three academic years of her promotion as a third-year student—as required by the
School’s Three-Year Clinical Completion Policy.
(Id.).
Dr. Hill and Ms. Ferguson also
determined that Plaintiff was not on track to graduate within six academic years afier her
matriculation to NJMS in August 2004—as required by the School’s Six-Year Graduation
Policy. (Id.).
With the help of Ms. Ferguson, Plaintiff requested a waiver of the School’s Six-Year
Graduation Policy.
(Id.
¶ 14; SOF ¶
54). The CSA granted Plaintiff’s waiver request, and
extended Plaintiff’s expected graduation date from February 2012 to May 2012, thereby
“exceed[ing] the six year maximum completion timeftame for students in the [M.D.] program.”
(Hill Deci.
¶ 17; Hill Deci., Ex. N). In its March 29, 2011 letter granting Plaintiff’s request, the
CSA advised Plaintiff that she “must satisfactorily complete the remainder of [her] academic
requirements in the doctor of medicine degree program by a May 2012 graduation date in order
to regain good SAP [satisfactory academic progress] standing.” (Hill DecL, Ex. N).
6
After the School granted Plaintiffs request to extend her anticipated graduation date,
Plaintiff had difficulty passing the $tep-2 CS and $tep-2 CK exams. In December 2011 and
January 2012, respectively, Plaintiff learned that she had failed both exams on her initial attempt.
(SOF
¶J
56, 62). Plaintiff alleges that after she learned that she had failed both Step-2 exams,
she asked Ms. Ferguson and Dr. Hill “if [she] could take Step-2 CS and Step-2 CK about a
month after their deadlines because [she] needed more time to prepare and study.” (P1. SOF
¶
57; Pl.’s Dep. Tr. 102:22-103:25). Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants rejected Plaintiffs request
for a reasonable accommodation in postponing the second trial on the USMLE 2 Clinical Skill
test.” (Compl.
¶ 44).
On March 24, 2012, Plaintiff failed the Step-2 CS exam for the second time. (SOF
¶
57).
Thereafter, she failed to meet an April 7, 2012 deadline that Dr. Hill had established for taking
the Step-2 CK exam for the second time. (Id.
¶ 63). Plaintiff subsequently chose not to sit for
the Step-2 CK exam on two rescheduled examination dates. (Id.
¶J 63-64).
On April 25, 2012, the School advised Plaintiff of her non-compliance with the Step-2 Policy
on account of her failure of the Step-2 CS exam on the second attempt and her failure to sit for
the Step-2 CK exam by the April 24, 2012 reexamination deadline. (IcL
¶ 69). On May 3, 2012,
Plaintiff submitted a formal waiver request to the CSA seeking (i) an extension of time to sit for
her second attempt to pass the Step-2 CK exam, and (ii) an opportunity to sit for the Step-2 CS
exam for a third time. (Id
¶ 72). In her request, Plaintiff attributed her failure of the CS exam
and failure to sit for the CK exam by the established deadline to “academic, personal, and
medical problems.” (Hill Decl., Ex. 5). Specifically, Plaintiff explained that she was suffering
from “ongoing depression and anxiety.” (Id.).
7
On May 7, 2012, the CSA held a hearing regarding Plaintiffs requests, at which time
Plaintiff was given the opportunity to address the Committee and answer members’ questions.
(Id.
¶J 73-74). The CSA denied Plaintiffs waiver requests.
appealed the CSA’s determination to Dean Johnson. (Id.
(Id.
¶ 77). Plaintiff thereafier
¶J 78-80). In support of her appeal,
Plaintiff submitted a letter that she wrote on her own behalf as well as a letter from her thentreating psychiatrist, Dr. Qi Hu, who advised that “Ms. Chin will be able to pass her Step II of
USMLE Exams in two months if her Bipolar and Panic conditions become stable.” (ECF No. 32
4, Declaration of Robert L, Johnson, M.D. (“Johnson Decl.”), Ix. H; SOF
¶J 79-80). Plaintiff
met with Dean Johnson and his Executive Assistant on May 31, 2012. (SOf
¶ 81). During this
meeting, Plaintiff was given a final opportunity to explain why she should remain at the School.
(Id.).
According to Dr. Hill and Dean Johnson, Dr. Hill contacted Dr. Hu in order to obtain more
information that would aid in Dr. Johnson’s appeal of the CSA’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff
from the School. (Johnson Dccl.
¶ 20; Hill Decl. ¶ 56). Dr. Hill has certified that he: “contacted
Dr. Hu, and he informed me that he had recently changed Plaintiffs medication at her insistence,
even though it was not his initial recommendation. Dr. flu, however, provided no specific
information with respect to whether Plaintiffs psychiatric conditions would stabilize at any time
under her current treatment plan.” (Hill Decl.
¶ 56).
On June 20, 2012, Dean Johnson affirmed the CSA’s decision to terminate Plaintiff from the
School, effective immediately. (SOF
¶ 84).
C. Procedural History
Against this backdrop, Plaintiff filed a two-count Complaint against NJMS and Dr. Hill on
February 27, 2014. The gravamen of Plaintiffs Complaint is that Defendants violated federal
8
and state anti-discrimination laws by: (1) denying her March 2012 requests to Dr. Hill and Ms.
Ferguson for an extension of time retake the Step-2 exams and (2) denying her formal written
request to sit for the Step-2 CS exam for a third time and for an extension of time to sit for her
second attempt to pass the Step-2 CK exam. (Compi.
¶J
43-50). Thus, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants denied her reasonable accommodations in violation of Title II of the Americans with
Disability Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
(“RA”), 29 U.S.C.
N.J.S.A.
§
§
§
12131-12134, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
794 (Count I) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”),
10:5-1 etseq., (Count II).
On February 24, 2016, Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment,
seeking dismissal of each of Plaintifrs claims. (ECF No. 32, “Defs.’ Mov. Br.”). Plaintiff filed
opposing papers on April 18, 2016 (ECF No. 39, “Pl.’s Opp. Br.”) and Defendant filed a reply to
same on April 25, 2016 (ECF No. 39, “Defs.’ Reply Br.”). This motion is now ripe for the
Court’s adjudication.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when, drawing all reasonable inferences in the non
movant’s favor, there exists “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). “[T]he moving party must show that the non-moving
party has failed to establish one or more essential elements of its case on which the non-moving
party has the burden of proof at trial.” McCabe v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 494 F.3d 418, 424 (3d
Cir. 2007) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)).
The Court must “view the underlying facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the
light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Pa. Coal Ass ‘n v. Babbitt, 63 F.3d 231,
9
236 (3d Cir. 1995). Moreover, “[i]n determining the appropriateness of summary judgment, the
court should not consider the record solely in piecemeal fashion, giving credence to innocent
explanations for individual strands of evidence, for a jury
.
.
.
would be entitled to view the
evidence as a whole.” Abramson v. William Patterson College of New Jersey, 260 f.3d 265, 285
(3d Cir. 2001) (quoting entirely Howley v. Town ofStratford, 217 F.3d 141, 151 (2d Cir. 2000)).
If a reasonable juror could return a verdict for the non-moving party regarding material disputed
factual issues, summary judgment is not appropriate. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 242-43, 249
(“At the summary judgment stage, the judge’s function is not himself to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”).
ANALYSIS
The parties dispute whether Plaintiff can prove her claim of disability discrimination
under the ADA, RA and NJLAD. Both the ADA and RA bar an entity that receives federal
funding, such as NJMS, from discriminating against an individual on account of that individual’s
disability. See McDonald v. Pennsylvania, 62 F.3d 92, 95 (3d Cir. 1995). Similarly, the NJLAD
prohibits “any place of public accommodation” from refusing to any individual, on account of,
inter alia, that individual’s disability, the right “to obtain all the accommodations, advantages,
facilities and privileges” of that public entity. N.J.S.A.
§ 10:5-4. The standards for determining
a violation of the RA and NJLAD are the same as those under the ADA.
See Chisoim v.
McManimon, 275 F.3d 315, 324 n.9 (3d Cir. 2001); see also Ensslin v. Twsp of North Bergen,
275 N.J. Super. 352, 364 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994) (applying federal case law interpreting
the RA to NJLAD claims of handicap discrimination and noting that the New Jersey “Supreme
Court has suggested a correlation between State and federal law on handicap discrimination”).
10
Accordingly, the Court “confine[s] [its] discussion to the ADA with the understanding that the
principles will apply equally to the Rehabilitation Act and NJLAD claims.” Chisoim, 275 F.3d
at 324, n.9; see also Chambers ex rd. chambers v. Sch. Dist. ofPhila. 3d ofEdu., 587 F.3d 176,
189 (3d Cir. 2009).
To state a claim for disability discrimination under the ADA, “[p]laintiffs must show that:
(1) they are handicapped or disabled as defined under the statutes; (2) they are otherwise
qualified to participate in the program at issue; and (3) they were precluded from participating in
a program or receiving a service or benefit because of their disability.” CG v. Pennsylvania Dep’t
ofEduc., 734 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Chambers ex rel. Chambers, 587 F.3d at 189).
For purposes of this motion, Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff suffers from a
disability which qualifies her for protection under these statutes. (Defs.’ Mov. Br. at 10, n. 2).
Defendants do maintain, however, that Plaintiff cannot meet the second element of her ADA
claim—that is, that Plaintiff cannot show that she was “otherwise qualified” for the School’s
medical program. (Id. at 13-16).
“An otherwise qualified individual is a person who can meet all of a program’s
requirements in spite of a disability, with or without reasonable accommodation.” Millington v.
Temple Univ. Sch. of Dentistry, 261 Fed. App’x. 363, 366 (3d Cir. Jan. 23, 2008) (unpublished)
(citing Southeastern Comm. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 406 (1979) and McDonald v.
Pennsylvania, 62 F.3d 92, 96 (3d Cir. 1995)). It is the plaintiff who must offer evidence that a
reasonable accommodation existed that would permit her to meet the program’s requirements.
Id.
If a plaintiff makes this showing, then a defendant bears the burden of showing that
plaintiff’s “requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of the school’s
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has now shown that she was discriminated against based on her disability.
(Defs.’ Mov. Br. at 20-27). However, because the Court finds that Plaintiff cannot meet the “otherwise qualified”
prong of her claims, the Court need not address this final element of Plaintiffs discrimination claims.
11
program.” Id. at 357 (citing Zttkle v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041, 1048
(9th
Cir.
1999).
In summary, Plaintiff argues that had she been granted her requested accommodations
with respect to re-taking the Step-2 exams, she would have been successful in passing those
exams and graduating from NJMS. Thus, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unlawfully denied:
(1) her March 2012 request to Ms. Ferguson and Dr. Hill for a one-month extension of time to
retake both Step-2 exams and (2) her May 2012 requests for an accommodation to take the Step2 CS exam for a third time and for an extension of time to take the Step-2 CK exam for a second
time. (Compl.
¶J 43,
50; SOF
¶ 72).
Plaintiff maintains that she is “otherwise qualified” to complete the School’s program.
(Pl.’s Opp. Br. at 5-10). First, Plaintiff notes that prior to her failures of the Step-2 exams she
was able to meet the School’s requirements.
(Id. at 5-7).
Specifically, Plaintiff cites to
Defendants’ November 2011 performance evaluation wherein the School acknowledged several
glowing reviews by her clinical advisors and recommended Plaintiff for a residency position.
(Id.). Second, Plaintiff states that unlike NJMS’s policy permitting students only two attempts at
taking the Step-2 exams, the National Board of Medical Examiners (“NMBE”) USMLE policy
permits a plaintiff up to six attempts. (Id. at 8-9). It appears to the Court that by referencing the
NBME Policy, Plaintiff is suggesting that her inability to comply with the School’s Step-2 Policy
does not make her unfit for medical school generally. Along the same lines, Plaintiff notes that
after her dismissal from NJMS, she enrolled in American International Medical University, and
in August 2014 (over two years after Plaintiff was dismissed from NJMS) she passed the Step-2
CK examination, “further demonstrating Plaintiff would have been able to satisfy the academic
standards of Defendant’s Medical Program had Defendant accommodated her.”
12
(Id. at 9).
Finally, Plaintiff notes that she was able to pass the Step-i examination on her third attempt
when Defendant granted the same accommodations that she requested for the Step-2 exams.
(Id.).
Defendant argues, and the Court agrees, that Plaintiff has not shown how her requested
waivers would have enabled her to pass the Step-2 exams. (Defs.’ Mov. Br. at 14). Plaintiff
attributes great importance to her academic successes prior to and up to two years after she was
required to record a passing score for the Step-2 exams. However, Plaintiff must show that she
was capable of completing the School’s requirements with reasonable accommodations at the
time that she requested those accommodations rather than several years prior to or after she made
these recommendations. Thus, the fact that: (1) Plaintiff completed the first half of the School’s
four-year curriculum; (2) that she passed the Step-i exam on her third attempt, and; (3) that
Plaintiff passed one (out of two)4 of the Step-2 exams two years after she was dismissed from
NJMS, are of no consequence to whether, in 2012, and despite her disabilities, Plaintiff was
qualified to graduate from NJMS.
Additionally, the fact that other schools, pursuant to the
NMBE Policies, may permit their students to take the Step-2 exam up to six times says nothing
of Plaintiffs ability to meet the specific academic requirements that NJMS imposes on its
students. The ADA does not impose any “requirement upon an educational institution to lower
or to effect substantial modifications of standards to accommodate a [protected individual].”
Southeastern Comm. College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 413 (1979).
In support of her appeal of the CSA’s decision to terminate Plaintiff from the program,
Plaintiff submitted appeal letters on her own behalf, as well as a letter from her treating
On February 11, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ request for an adjournment of the deadline to file a motion
for summary judgment “in order to allow Plaintiffs counsel additional time to provide Defendants with the results
of Plaintiffs most recent USMLE Step-2 CS exam,” which she was scheduled to sit for in January 2016. (ECF No.
31). To date, Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence that she has passed (or even sat for) the January 2016
scheduled exam.
13
psychiatrist, Dr. Hu. However, Plaintiffs May $ and May 31, 2012 letters to Dean Johnson did
not engender any confidence that Plaintiff could pass the Step-2 exams if her accommodations
were granted. Plaintiff’s letters attributed her failures (in part) to a flare up of her depression,
anxiety and panic attacks. (Johnson Dccl., Ex. F). In addition to promising to work with tutors
and improve her study habits, Plaintiff promised to “see [her] psychiatrist every week and
comply with all his medication and tell him of any changes or side effect immediately.” (Id.).
However, as Defendants note, Plaintiff failed to explain how granting her requested
accommodations would ensure her passage of the Step-2 examinations. (Defs.’ Mov. Br. at 14).
Specifically, after reviewing Plaintiffs academic record and her letters of appeal, Dean Johnson
determined that “any extra study time [he] may have afforded [Plaintiff] would not have had any
impact on her ability to take or pass the Step-2 exams.” (Johnson Dccl.
¶ 19).
Moreover, the record shows that Dr. Hill and Dean Johnson actively sought additional
information that would assist in determining whether Plaintiffs’ requests to retake the Step-2
examinations could yield passing results. (Hill Decl.
¶ 56; Johnson Dccl. ¶ 20). Upon reviewing
Dr. Hu’s brief letter, which stated that Plaintiff “will be able to pass her Step II of USMLE
Exams in two months if her Bipolar and Panic conditions become stable” (Johnson Dccl., Ex.
H), Dr. Hill contacted Dr. Hu for more information. (Hill Dccl.
¶ 56). Dr. Hu “informed [Dr.
Hill] that he had recently changed Plaintiffs medication at her insistence, even though it was not
his initial recommendation. Dr. Hu, however, provided no specific information with respect to
whether Plaintiffs psychiatric conditions would stabilize at any time under her current treatment
plan.” (Hill Dccl.
¶ 56).
Even assuming Plaintiff was able to demonstrate that she would be capable of passing the
Step-2 exams with her requested accommodations, Defendants have offered sufficient evidence
14
to show that the requested accommodations would have “fundamentally alter[ed] the nature of
the [School’s] program.” 28 C.F.R.
§ 35.130(b)(7); see also Mullington, 261 Fed. App’x. at 366.
That is, Defendants have shown that granting Plaintiffs accommodations would result in the
“substantial weakening [of NJMS’s] academic standards.” (Defs.’ Mov. Br. at 16). Specifically,
were Defendants to grant Plaintiffs requests to waive the Step-2 Policy by allowing Plaintiff to
retake these examinations, Defendants would also be waiving the School’s Six-Year Graduation
Policy and Three-Year Clinical Completion policies. (Id. at 8). According to Defendants, not
only would the waiver of all three policies for one student be unprecedented (Id. at 17-20), but
such a waiver would “fundamentally alter the M.D. program by ignoring Plaintiffs demonstrated
failure to pass nationally-required examinations by established deadlines—standards and
requirements that the School is charged with upholding for all NJMS students.” (Hill DecI.
61).
¶
The School further notes that “Plaintiffs request to waive these policies would have
completely eviscerated the academic standards otherwise applicable to all NJMS medical
students, as her repeated failures demonstrated her inability to master the basic medical science
necessary to become a competent physician.” (Hill Decl.
¶ 61).
Plaintiff argues that a grant of her accommodations would not have fundamentally altered
the School’s academic program. (Pl.’s
Opp.
Br. at 10-15). First, Plaintiff takes the position that
her March 2012 request for an extension of time to retake the Step-2 exams would not have
required the School to waive its Six-Year Graduation Policy. (Id. at 10-12). Applying principles
of contract interpretation to the School’s Promotion Policy, Plaintiff argues that students have six
calendar years—rather than six academic years—to complete the program. (Id.). Therefore,
Plaintiff contends that if the School granted her March 2012 verbal request for an extension of
15
time to retake the Step-2 exams, she would have been able to record a passing score prior to the
expiration of six-calendar years from her August 2004 enrollment. (Id. at 12).
The Court declines to apply principles of contract interpretation to the NJMS graduation
requirements.
It is not the role of this Court to interpret the School’s Promotion Policy.
Accordingly, the Court will defer to the School’s representations that the Six-Year Graduation
Policy “requires all NJMS students to graduate within six academic years—not six calendar
years—of their matriculation.” (Ferguson Decl.
¶ 7).
Plaintiff further argues that a waiver of the Six-Year graduation policy would not lessen
the School’s academic standards since there is no federal requirement that a student must
graduate within six years of matriculation. (Pl.’s
Opp.
Br. at 12-13). However, the absence of
such a requirement by the Department of Regulations is inapposite to the question of whether a
waiver of the School’s policies would fundamentally change the nature of that specific School’s
program. As such, the court is not moved by Plaintiffs reference to Federal regulations that set
forth the fundamental requirements that all post-graduate schools must maintain.
finally, Plaintiffs argument that other students have been granted a waiver of the Step-2
Policy is unavailing in light of Defendants’ representations, and Plaintiffs failure to offer
examples to the contrary, that no student has ever been granted a waiver of all three policies
implicated by Plaintiffs requests. (Pl.’s Opp. Br. at 14-15; Defs.’ Reply Br. at 10; Hill DecI.
¶J
60-61).
In summary, the record demonstrates that the School took great efforts to accommodate
Plaintiff throughout her academic career and was in fact proactive in helping to facilitate
Plaintiffs academic success. (See Background Section, infra). Plaintiff has testified that she
met with Dr. Hill “dozens” of times during her tenure at the School, that he made himself
16
available to meet with Plaintiff to discuss her academic difficulties, and that he guided and
advised Plaintiff along the way, and that he assisted in her appeal of several of the School’s
decisions.
(Pl.’s Dep. Tr. 68:20-70:14).
Before terminating Plaintiff from NJMS, the CSA
reviewed Plaintiffs waiver request and her academic record, and also gave Plaintiff the
opportunity to present arguments as to why she should be pennitted to remain at the School.
(Hill Decl.
¶
52).
Similarly, when reviewing Plaintiffs appeal from the CSA’s termination
decision, Dean Johnson had an in-person meeting with Plaintiff to permit her further opportunity
to present evidence that her requested accommodations would enable her to pass the Step-2
examinations.
(Johnson Decl.
¶ 13). Dean Johnson also directed Dr. Hill to reach out to
Plaintiffs psychiatrist for any more information with regards to the effect that treatment may
have on Plaintiffs ability to pass her exams. (SOF
¶ 83; Johnson Decl. ¶J 12-21). Ultimately,
Dean Johnson determined that Plaintiff was not qualified to complete the School’s program and
that granting Plaintiffs requested accommodations would pose a threat to the integrity of the
medical program. (Defs.’ Mov. Br. at 18-20; Johnson Decl. ¶21).
“When judges are asked to review the substance of a genuinely academic decision, such
as this one, they should show great respect for the faculty’s professional judgment.” Regents of
Univ. of Much. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225 (1985). Accordingly, the Court will defer to the
School’s academic judgment that Plaintiffs failure to comply with its policies necessitated her
dismissal, and will grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Id.; see also MeMahon v.
Rutgers, Civ. No. 11-2306, 2013 WL 5937416, *9 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2013) (dismissing plaintiffs
substantive due process claim against a university where plaintiff had not shown that the
University’s “decision to dismiss him because of his grades was ‘beyond the pale of reasoned
academic decision-making”) (internal citation omitted)).
17
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby
granted in fuii.5 An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May___
joSiX/ LfNARES
I,
U1’HTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for disability discrimination, the Court necessarily
finds that Plaintiffs claim against Dr. Hill for aiding and abetting in violation of the NJLAD must fail, as an
individual cannot be liable for aiding and abetting an NJLAD violation in the absence of wrongful conduct by a
“principal violator.” See Tarr v. Ciasulli, 181 N.J. 70, 84-85 (2004).
18
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?