Background
Kelli Florek enrolled in Creighton University’s distance doctor-of-pharmacy program and suffered a concussion in 2019. Creighton approved accommodations including additional testing time, blue-light-filtering glasses, and, with instructor permission, extended deadlines or rescheduled exams. Florek later sought closed captioning and other accommodations, but she refused Creighton’s request for updated medical documentation because she believed her accommodations were permanent.
Creighton subsequently cited Florek for conduct it considered unprofessional, including failing to report a missed COVID-19 test, lacking candor, sending accusatory and threatening emails, and repeatedly refusing to communicate or meet with faculty. After a fourth citation triggered faculty review, Creighton dismissed her in September 2021. Florek did not pursue the university’s two available levels of review and instead sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.
The district court granted Creighton partial summary judgment and later partial judgment as a matter of law on Florek’s disability-discrimination claims. A jury found for Creighton on her remaining retaliation claim, and Florek appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. On failure to accommodate, the court held that Florek did not establish that closed captioning was necessary for her disability because neither she nor her doctor connected that request to her concussion-related limitations. Although she should have received extra time on three short quizzes, Creighton remedied one instance with a retake, and she earned perfect scores on the other two. The court also deferred to Creighton’s academic decision not to extend a timed oral simulation of pharmacy practice.
The court further held that Creighton did not unlawfully deny Florek’s request to reschedule a 2021 final exam. Her stated concern involved distractions from household members, her accommodations were not then on file because she had declined to provide updated documentation, and even the earlier accommodation required instructor approval for rescheduling. The ADA and Rehabilitation Act did not require Creighton to provide accommodations she had not requested or whose necessity she had not explained.
Florek’s disparate-treatment theory also failed. The faculty’s critical statements concerned her professionalism, truthfulness, communications, and refusal to meet—not her disability. Creighton supplied legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the citations and dismissal, and Florek did not produce evidence permitting a reasonable inference that disability discrimination actually motivated those decisions. Because the district court had not erred in resolving the discrimination claims, the court found no basis to disturb the jury’s retaliation verdict. It also upheld the admission of evidence bearing on a trial witness’s credibility and potential bias.
Key Takeaways
- A student asserting failure to accommodate must request a reasonable accommodation and explain how it is necessary in light of the student’s disability.
- A university does not violate the ADA or Rehabilitation Act merely by disciplining disability-related misconduct when the evidence does not show that disability discrimination motivated the discipline.
- Courts give educational institutions some deference on academic decisions, absent evidence that the asserted academic policy is a pretext for discrimination.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that notice of a disability does not obligate a university to identify and provide every potentially useful accommodation. Students must connect requested measures to documented disability-related needs, while institutions may require information sufficient to evaluate or renew accommodations.
The ruling also distinguishes disability discrimination from discipline based on professionalism and participation in ordinary academic processes. Even where communications mention disability or accommodations, a plaintiff must present evidence linking the adverse action itself to discriminatory motivation.