Background
Jennifer Ferrell Brantley, an undergraduate at UT Austin with multiple diagnosed disabilities—including Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder—enrolled in a class taught by Dr. Scott Wolford during fall 2024. Throughout the semester and continuing after, Brantley sent Wolford numerous emails daily containing personal narratives, descriptions of her mental health conditions, trauma histories, and diary-like musings alongside some academic topics.
In January 2025, Wolford reported his concerns to the university’s Behavioral Concerns Advice Line (BCAL), noting he received 3–4 emails daily and was not qualified to provide the psychological support Brantley appeared to need. After Brantley continued emailing despite no longer being enrolled in his class, Wolford provided mental health resources and requested she limit contact to academic matters. Brantley claims this response emotionally harmed her and caused her to send still more emails. Throughout March 2025, Wolford repeatedly asked Brantley to cease all contact, stating the emails caused him “tremendous distress,” but Brantley persisted.
On March 31, 2025, Wolford filed a disciplinary complaint. Brantley accepted responsibility for continuing to contact him but argued her behavior resulted from trauma history and neurodivergent communication patterns. She also filed Title IX complaints about the disciplinary process. The university placed her on disciplinary probation; her appeal was denied. Brantley then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging disability discrimination, due process violation, and retaliation.
The Court’s Holding
The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding Brantley had sued the University itself rather than proper officials under § 1983 and had not alleged federal funding required for Rehabilitation Act claims. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, but also addressed the merits to hold the claims would fail regardless. Brantley’s core argument—that the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discipline for harassing behavior caused by disability—was rejected. The court held that federal disability law does not require institutions to tolerate harassment or inappropriate conduct even when the conduct stems from a student’s disability, applying precedent from the employment context that disability does not “insulate” individuals from consequences of their conduct.
On the due process claim, the court found Brantley received full procedural protection: notice of investigation, opportunity to respond, and appeal—all the law requires. The retaliation claim also failed. Brantley’s protected activity (Title IX and OCR complaints) occurred either after the disciplinary process began or lacked plausible causal connection to Wolford’s actions. The court found hundreds of emails—not a passing reference to a prior complaint—motivated the referral. The university’s Title IX outreach was not adverse action, and Brantley declined to engage. The court further rejected the claim that email communication was inadequate accommodation when Brantley herself had requested written (rather than verbal) communication.
The court also addressed Brantley’s additional arguments on appeal. She claimed the university discriminated by failing to “activate support services” in response to Wolford’s initial report, but the record showed Title IX did reach out to her; she chose not to engage. She argued the investigator failed to accommodate her processing impairments by limiting her to two response emails, but the court found email itself was her requested accommodation and her allegation “patently frivolous.”
Key Takeaways
- Universities may discipline students for harassment and disruptive conduct even when the conduct results from or is caused by a student’s disability
- The Rehabilitation Act does not shield students from disciplinary consequences for violating conduct codes based on disability-related behavior
- Retaliation claims under disability law require plausible causal connection; temporal proximity and disclosed protected activity alone are insufficient when intervening conduct is the true motivator
- Providing the accommodation method a student requests (e.g., written rather than verbal communication) may satisfy the reasonable accommodation requirement, even if the student claims the underlying discipline itself was discriminatory
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies institutional liability under disability law in the student conduct context. Universities are not required to tolerate harassment or conduct violations simply because a student attributes the behavior to disability. The court’s holding protects faculty and staff from ongoing harassment while preserving—not eliminating—the university’s obligation to consider disability in appropriate contexts, such as offering mental health resources, alternative communication methods, or support services. Reasonable accommodation and disciplinary accountability are not mutually exclusive.
For students and disability rights advocates, the decision signals boundaries: while institutions must provide meaningful accommodations and fair process, disability does not excuse violations of conduct standards that harm or harass others. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that universities can act fairly and consider disability context while still maintaining behavioral expectations. The ruling also reinforces that causation matters in retaliation claims—a student cannot survive judicial scrutiny by pointing to prior protected activity if the disciplinary decision was plainly prompted by intervening misconduct.