The Higher Education Accommodation Mistake
Volume 114 Issue 2 Date 2025 The Higher Education Accommodation Mistake by Katherine Macfarlane A university may deny a disabled student’s reasonable accommodation request if it decides that the accommodation would fundamentally alter its academic programs. In practice, the fundamental alteration defense works like a silver bullet. In evaluating the defense’s application, courts defer to universities’ judgments about what exactly is fundamental about their programs. This deference is a mistake, and one that has had wide- ranging consequences for generations of disabled students whose accom modation requests were denied. This Article describes how Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine , a First Circuit decision inter preting Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, invented a standard for reviewing how the fundamental alteration defense applies to requests for reasonable accommodation in higher education, and how that standard then became the leading approach. Wynne imported its problematically deferential standard from an unrelated and inapplicable body of law— qualified immunity. The result is a test that mistakenly grants super-def erence to certain Section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defendants in a way that the law does not permit. The Supreme Court has unequivocally held that ADA defendants do not receive special deference with respect to a court’s determination of what aspects of their programs and services are fundamental. Yet for decades, Wynne has gone unques tioned, and its influence has only grown. It is now creeping into work- place discrimination cases, where it unjustifiably advantages employer- defendants. This Article is the first to contend that Wynne was wrongly decided. If courts recognize that Wynne is incorrect, more accommoda tions will be provided to the very students who need them—and as a result, those students will be more likely to stay in school, graduate, and have a chance at the self-fulfillment the ADA was intended to facilitate. Continue reading The Higher Education Accommodation Mistake . Macfarlane_The-Higher-Education-Accommodation-Mistake
Executive Summary
This article, 'The Higher Education Accommodation Mistake', critiques the deferential standard established by Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine in evaluating the fundamental alteration defense for reasonable accommodation requests under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The author argues that this standard, which imports principles from qualified immunity, is a mistake that has resulted in the denial of accommodations for generations of disabled students. The article contends that the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea of granting special deference to ADA defendants in determining what aspects of their programs are fundamental. The author concludes that recognizing the error in Wynne will lead to more accommodations being provided, enabling disabled students to stay in school, graduate, and achieve self-fulfillment.
Key Points
- ▸ The Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine decision established a deferential standard for evaluating the fundamental alteration defense in higher education accommodation cases.
- ▸ The standard imports principles from qualified immunity, which is inapplicable to Section 504 and ADA cases.
- ▸ The Supreme Court has rejected the idea of granting special deference to ADA defendants in determining what aspects of their programs are fundamental.
- ▸ The deferential standard has resulted in the denial of accommodations for generations of disabled students.
Merits
Strength
The article provides a clear and concise critique of the Wynne decision and its implications for disabled students in higher education.
Comprehensive analysis
The author provides a thorough examination of the relevant case law and statutory provisions, demonstrating a deep understanding of the issue.
Demerits
Limitation
The article focuses primarily on the higher education context, which may limit its generalizability to other settings, such as the workplace.
Lack of empirical evidence
The article could benefit from empirical research or data to support its claims about the impact of the deferential standard on disabled students.
Expert Commentary
The article's critique of the Wynne decision is a timely and important contribution to the debate about disability rights and education law. The author's analysis is thorough and well-reasoned, demonstrating a deep understanding of the relevant case law and statutory provisions. The article's focus on the higher education context is a strength, as it highlights the need for reform in this area. However, the article could benefit from empirical research or data to support its claims about the impact of the deferential standard on disabled students. Nevertheless, the article's arguments are persuasive and have significant implications for policy and practice.
Recommendations
- ✓ Courts and institutions should re-examine the Wynne decision and its application in higher education accommodation cases, with a view to adopting a more rigorous standard for reviewing requests for reasonable accommodation.
- ✓ Policymakers should consider reforms to the education laws and regulations governing accessibility in higher education, with a view to ensuring greater access to accommodations for disabled students.
Sources
Original: Georgetown Law Journal
