Argenyi v. Creighton University, No. 11-3336 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseBecause Creighton University failed to provide what plaintiff, who had a serious hearing impairment, considered necessary and reasonable accommodations, he brought this action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12182, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794. The court concluded that the district court erred by disregarding plaintiff's affidavit, the "independent documentary evidence" offered in its support, and all respects of the record before it; the evidence produced in this case created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Creighton University denied plaintiff an equal opportunity to gain the same benefit from medical school as his non disabled peers by refusing to provide his requested accommodations; and therefore, the district court's grant of summary judgment to Creighton University should be reversed and the case remanded. The court need not consider Creighton University's argument on cross appeal that the district court erred by denying its request for costs without providing a rationale for doing so.
Court Description: Civil case - Americans with Disabilities Act. District court erred in determining plaintiff's allegations were unsupported; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act required defendant to provide reasonable auxiliary aids and services to afford plaintiff, a hearing impaired student in its medical program, meaningful access or an equal opportunity to gain the same benefit as his nondisabled peers; the court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment after concluding plaintiff had failed to show his requested accommodations were necessary as required by the ADA, as the evidence at this stage of the case supported his claim that he was unable to follow lectures or communicate with patients without the requested accommodation; reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.