EDUC 432

Matthew Kunar and James John

April 28, 1999

Kevin M. McGuiness v. University of New Mexico School of Medicine. United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 97-2249 (1998)

Kevin M. McGuiness brought action against the University of New Mexico School of Medicine for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted summary judgment for the medical school. McGuiness appealed, and the circuit court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.

Prior to entering the University of New Mexico Medical School in 1992, McGuiness had earned a bachelor of science degree in chemistry and biology, a degree in physiological psychology, and a doctorate in psychology. He had worked as a forensic chemist; he also worked as a clinical psychologist during medical school. McGuiness had experienced anxiety in chemistry and mathematics courses in both graduate and undergraduate school but was able to overcome his difficulties.

At the beginning of each medical school class, the professors explained the school's written grading policy. During the basic biochemistry course, McGuiness informed the professor of his anxiety but requested no test-taking accommodations. He asked that the professor set clear grading standards for the course. At the end of the biochemistry course, McGuiness received a grade of "marginal". McGuiness earned another "marginal" grade in cardiovascular pulmonary physiology. So, more than fifteen percent of his first-year grades were "marginal". The medical school's grading policy stated that students who receive "marginal" grades in more that fifteen percent of their first-year courses must repeat the first year or leave the school. He refused an opportunity to take makeup exams in biochemistry, but took three makeup tests in the cardiovascular/pulmonary block, and did not obtain a "satisfactory" grade. McGuiness chose not to repeat the first-year curriculumand filed suit against the University of New Mexico Medical School. The district court granted summary judgment for the medical school on the ground that Mr. McGuiness was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA.

McGuinness appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The court of appeals ruled against McGuinness, stating that an anxiety disorder that was limited to specific academic subjects did not constitute a disability under the ADA. During the appeal the Title I and Title II ADA claims were treated separately, though they were treated together in the original case. Title II of the ADA states, " no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of the public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity" (42 USC § 12132). Though McGuinness was not an employee of the state he could file under this Title due to McPherson v. Michigan High School Athletic Association, 119 F. 3d 453, 459 (6th Cir.1996) which allowed an high school student to file suit under Title II. His Title II claim failed was because he was unable to show that he had a disability within the meaning of ADA.

Title II goes on to state", a 'qualified individual' is someone with a disability who 'with or without reasonable modification . . . meets the essential eligibility requirements' to receive public services or participate in a public program." 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). A "disability" is " 'a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities' of the individual." 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). It was clear that McGuinness' anxiety did hinder his learning ability in the fields of chemistry and mathematics to a certain degree. To what degree was the precise question the court looked at because McGuinness did state that there had been times when he was able to lessen his anxiety by altering his study habits. Based on the Seimon v. AT&T Corp., 117 F.3d 1173, 1176 (10th Cir. 1997) (where it quotes 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(1)), the court found that his anxiety was not actually a disability because it did not prevent him from performing "a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in a various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities." The court also looked at MacDonald v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 94 F.3d 1437 (10th Cir. 1996). In MacDonald, an airline mechanic whose vision impairment prevented him from taxiing the aircraft was found not do be disabled under the ADA because he could do many other jobs. Taking this case and applying it the McGuinness case the court inferred that just because McGuinness was hindered in his chemistry and mathematics learning, this did not prevent him from learning other subjects. (Which is apparently true, since McGuinness holds several degrees).

Even if McGuinness had shown that his anxiety was a disability under the ADA, he would have not been entitled to receive an "unreasonable accommodation" from the school. Educational institutions are allowed to sift through candidates with regard to an individual's competency needed for a degree. The court found that McGuinness' anxiety while taking chemistry and math tests was not a disability. Therefore, the medical school was found innocent in the accusation of discrimination under Title II of the ADA. The court found that Title I of the ADA did not even apply to McGuinness, since he was not employed by the medical school.

In regards to his cause of action under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, McGuiness did not show he suffered from a disability covered by the statue. The court said anxiety during mathematics or chemistry exams is not a disability under the Act. The court also stated: "Nor is granting the plaintiff a passing grade a reasonable accommodation if university officials believe that he has not demonstrated competency in subject matter necessary for a medical degree."