Legal News

Disabled Student Wins Right to Live in College Dorm

By Jennifer Forsyth

If a university opens its doors and allows someone to enroll in a special program, does that mean that student has matriculated there and deserves to participate in all aspects of college life? A federal judge in Michigan ruled that it does.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan of Michigan’s Eastern District ruled that Oakland University in Rochester violated federal law by not allowing a learning handicapped student from living in a campus dorm–a battle the man has waged for two years. Here’s the story, courtesy of the Detroit News, and a longer story by the local Daily Tribune.

The News writes that 25-year-old Micah Fialka-Feldman has a cognitive impairment that hinders his ability to read and write. He participates in a special program for adults with disabilities who would not otherwise be able to meet the university’s entrance requirements. It’s designed to give him social skills in order to find a job. He pays a fee equal to full tuition but doesn’t earn grades. Two years ago, when he enrolled to live on campus, the university informed Fialka-Feldman that he was not eligible for dorm life because he’s not in a degree seeking program, arguing that if Fialka-Feldman and others in such programs could live on campus it would change campus culture.

But, according to the News:

OU has “not shown that enrollment in a degree-granting program is an essential requirement to live in a campus dormitory,” Duggan said in his Dec. 23 opinion that found the university violated the federal Rehabilitation Act by failing to make a reasonable accommodation.

Further, Duggan said the university’s assumption that Fialka-Feldman would be incapable of following housing rules “appears to be grounded on prejudice, stereotypes and/or unfounded fear.”

LB readers may remember Duggan from his ruling in another landmark university decision: Gratz v. Bollinger, which ended up with the Supreme Court ruling 6-3 that the University of Michigan’s admissions policy regarding race violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on December 29, 2009 (boomark / email).