Gilfillan v. Bradley Univ.

GRACE GILFILLAN, Plaintiff, v. BRADLEY UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

Case No. 18-1297-MMM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

May 19, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Bradley University's Motion for Summary Judgment. D. 13¹. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant's Motion is GRANTED in that Plaintiff fails to adduce sufficient evidence for her federal civil rights claims to proceed to trial. Because the claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction are dismissed, the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim and Defendant's Motion on the claim is DENIED AS MOOT. All pending pretrial trial and trial dates are VACATED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

JURISDICTION

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as Plaintiff's claims arise under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12182, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et. seq. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).Venue in this Court is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Peoria, Illinois.

BACKGROUND

In 2015, Plaintiff Grace Gilfillan was accepted into the Doctor of Physical Therapy ("DPT") program at Bradley University. D. 24, ¶ 1. Prior to enrolling at Bradley, Plaintiff earned an associate degree from Illinois Central College and a bachelor's degree from Western Illinois University. Id. One of the goals of the DPT program is to prepare graduate students to serve as physical therapist autonomous practitioners. Id. ¶ 3. As such, the program has stringent academic requirements. One of those requirements is that a student cannot earn a grade lower than "C" in any of her classes. D. 14-2 at 21. If she does, the program handbook calls for dismissal of the student. D. 24, ¶ 5. The program is designed for a class cohort to participate in a three-year preplanned curriculum as a group. Id. ¶ 12. Plaintiff's cohort began in June 2015. D. 7, ¶ 15.

Plaintiff's Disabilities

In April 2016, with a summer session and fall semester behind her, Plaintiff approached one of her professors concerning treatment options for her disabilities. Pl.'s Dep. at 42.² Plaintiff, who suffered from depression, had become increasingly depressed and was experiencing suicidal ideation, which affected her ability to perform academically. Id. at 73-74. Plaintiff had last been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder ("MDD") by a Bradley physician in July 2015. D. 14-2 at 124. A month earlier, she began seeing a school psychologist at the university. Pl.'s Dep. at 74. Plaintiff took prescribed medication for her depression. D. 14-2 at 124.

Accommodations

On April 12, 2016, in response to her request for assistance, Plaintiff's professor emailed Plaintiff information about requesting accommodations at the university. D. 14-2 at 119. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff formally requested the following accommodations: assistance with notetaking, permission to audio record lectures, extended deadlines (if possible), and a quiet environment and extended time for testing. Id. at 126, 128. On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff emailed several of her professors informing them of her MDD diagnosis, along with the diagnoses of other disabilities, and requested they grant her incompletes in four of her Spring 2016 semester courses so that she could pursue more intensive treatment for her depression. D. 24, ¶ 22.

In response, Plaintiff was granted additional time, after the end of the semester, to complete her course requirements. Pl.'s Dep. at 45. Plaintiff alleges she also requested accommodations for her Summer 2016 clinical rotation, in late March of 2016, but she fails to provide substantiation for that request outside of her own testimony. D. 14-2 at 95. Additionally, the professor who oversaw Plaintiff's clinical rotations recalls no such request. D. 25 at 22. Clinical rotations at the university were graded on a pass/fail basis, D. 15-1 at 25, and Plaintiff passed her Summer 2016 clinical rotation without accommodations. Id. at 108.

After Plaintiff's Summer 2016 clinical rotation, the university enacted its student accommodations procedure, which was to send notice of a student's approved accommodations to the student's professors each semester. D. 29, ¶ 35. Professors receiving notice were expected to implement the accommodations, as there were no optional accommodations. Id. ¶ 36.

For the Fall 2016 semester, Plaintiff's academic accommodations included double time for exams/assessments, exams/assessments in an auditory format, and the ability to record lectures with a smart pen. D. 20-3 at 86-87. For reasons not discernable from the record, Plaintiff wasforced to notify her professors of her approved accommodations toward the end of September 2016, as opposed to the university providing notice. Id. at 89-90.

For the Spring 2017 semester, the university sent out a timely notice of accommodations on Plaintiff's behalf. D. 25 at 48-49. The approved accommodations for that semester included double time for exams/assessments, a distraction-reduced exam environment, and the ability to record lectures. Id. at 48.

Prior to the Fall 2017 semester, Plaintiff requested extended deadlines for assignments, in addition to her previous accommodations. D. 24, ¶ 99. Plaintiff was granted the accommodation of extended deadlines for assignments with faculty approval, listed as "[e]xtra time for assignments w/ prof[essor] approval. Student may request additional time for completion of assignments from professor." D. 21-1 at 96. Plaintiff contends this was an accommodation for extended deadlines on all assignments regardless of approval. D. 24, ¶ 101. On August 29, 2017, notice of Plaintiff's approved accommodations for the Fall 2017 semester was sent to her professors. D. 21-1 at 96-97. The accommodations included e-textbooks, extended time on tests in a distraction-reduced environment, and notetaking services, which included the use of a smart pen. Id.

Struggles and Symptoms

Plaintiff had a number of serious setbacks that prevented her from continuing in Bradley's DPT program. As mentioned earlier, Plaintiff took four incompletes during her Spring 2016 semester. She was required to make up work for those courses over the summer of 2016. During Plaintiff's Summer 2016 clinical rotation, Plaintiff's clinical instructor notified the director of clinical education that there were concerns with her performance. D. 25-1 at 76. Those concerns included Plaintiff coming to work unprepared, struggling with patient evaluation and treatments, needing constant supervision when working with patients, and tardiness. Id. at 77. Plaintiff passedthe clinical rotation, but her performance left the director questioning Plaintiff's abilities. Id. at 106, 110.

In June 2016, Plaintiff informed her therapist that she was avoiding school work. D. 14-2 at 141. Plaintiff disclosed she had completed only a fraction of the required work that she needed to and that she waited too long to get started. Id. at 143. Plaintiff also surmised that she might be unable to start her summer clinical with her cohort, which would lead to her graduating after the group. Id. Around the same time, Plaintiff informed her psychiatrist that she was still struggling with procrastination. Id. at 145. Plaintiff also told her therapist she was tired all of the time and that all she wanted to do was eat and sleep. Id. at 147.

On January 12, 2017, the university sent Plaintiff a letter explaining that she was considered to be of "Academic Concern" because she received a "C" in PT 740: Clinical Science III. D. 15-1 at 89. The letter went on to state that her performance was especially concerning, as Plaintiff received a prior "C" in PT 662: Neurological Physical Therapy. Id. The letter informed Plaintiff she would need to perform remediation work for the course during the 2017 spring semester. Id. On January 17, 2017, Plaintiff reported to her therapist that she was frustrated with herself because of her behavioral patterns. Id. at 2. She also reported that she felt like she was behind before even starting because she procrastinated on some research and getting her office ready. Id.

On February 3, 2017, Plaintiff emailed two of her professors stating that she would be late for class that morning because she had to drop off her cat for surgery. Id. at 77. On March 28, 2017, Plaintiff's therapist noted that Plaintiff decided to discontinue almost all of the psychotropic medications she was taking, and that Plaintiff was frustrated that she could not concentrate or listen during lectures. Id. at 3.

On April 16, 2017, Plaintiff sent an email to one of her professors explaining why she was unprepared for his extemporaneous request for an oral explanation of her homework assignment. D. 15-1 at 27. In his reply, the professor emphasized he was there to help Plaintiff be successful. Id. He went on to explain that Plaintiff was tardy for class and sleeping through her alarm was not an excuse. Id. The professor warned that nonprofessional behavior, such as tardiness, leaving abruptly, and consistent absences were not acceptable in the profession of a physical therapist and could lead to substandard practice, patient safety risks, and employee dismissal. Id. He urged Plaintiff to do everything in her power to be in attendance for the entire class period for the remainder of the semester. Id. In conclusion, the professor advised Plaintiff to take ownership and responsibility for finishing the semester stronger than she had demonstrated. Id. at 28. He ended the correspondence telling Plaintiff he believed in her, and that he, and others, were there to help. Id.

On April 20,...