Issue
The United States Court of Appeals recently considered whether a medical student who has achieved considerable academic success can be found to be substantially limited in reading and learning to qualify for protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]. (Wong v. Regents of the University of California (— F. 3d —, 2004 WL 1837752, 9th Cir. (Cal.), Aug. 18, 2004)
Facts
Mr. Wong obtained a bachelor’s degree, magna cum laude, in biochemistry and a master’s degree in cellular/molecular biology. He had no formal accommodations, but regularly requested additional time on assignments and examinations, and spent all of his extra time reading for class. Wong was then admitted to the medical school at UC Davis. In the first two years, Wong completed his academic courses with a better than B average and passed a required national board examination. He requested no accommodations.
Wong developed problems in the third year when clinical clerkships began. He received a failing grade in his first clerkship and withdrew from his second following a midterm evaluation showing significant problems. When he returned to school, Wong was diagnosed by the University with a learning impairment that limited his ability to process and communicate information. He requested additional time to prepare for clerkships before each rotation and did generally well with that accommodation. However, later the school refused to give Wong the extra time, citing fairness and the purposes of the curriculum. Wong sued and the district court ultimately ruled in favor of the University, finding that Wong had not proved he was disabled for purposes of the ADA. Wong appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Appellate Court Decision
The ADA prohibits discrimination by public entities against qualified individuals with a disability. As the plaintiff, Wong bore the burden of proving that he was disabled, having a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limited him in one or more major life activity.” While he was unquestionably impaired, Wong could not prove his impairment limited him in a major life activity, such as learning and reading. The issue was not whether Wong could keep up with a rigorous medical school curriculum, but whether his impairment substantially limited his ability to learn as a whole, for purposes of daily living, as compared to most people. Wong had obtained significant academic success. Although he read slowly, he presented no evidence that he could not conduct daily life activities, such as reading newspapers, government forms, or street signs.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision against Wong, concluding that “merely having an impairment does not make one disabled for the purposes of the ADA.”
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.