Jennifer Molosso, a student in the University of Louisiana at Monroe's nursing program, was dismissed after failing multiple courses. She alleged that the university discriminated against her based on her disabilities, specifically ADHD and depression, by failing to provide reasonable accommodations. Although Molosso disclosed her struggles to her instructors and was directed to the university's Counseling Center in her syllabus, she never visited the center to formally request accommodations. After the university granted summary judgment on her claims, Molosso appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the university's knowledge of her needs and in denying her motion for additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).
The Fifth Circuit addressed two primary issues. First, regarding the failure-to-accommodate claim, the court reiterated that a plaintiff must prove the entity knew of the disability and its consequential limitations. The court explained that the 'open and obvious' exception is narrow, particularly for mental disabilities, noting that 'knowledge of a disability is different from knowledge of the resulting limitation and certainly is different from knowledge of the necessary accommodation.' The court found that Molosso's disclosure of ADHD to a professor did not make her specific limitations or need for accommodation 'open and obvious.' Second, the court held that Molosso failed to properly apprise the university of her need because she did not request accommodations through the designated Counseling Center. Citing Pickett v. Tex. Tech Univ. Health Scis. Ctr., the court stated that 'a student must bring a request for accommodation to the proper office, rather than making it verbally to an advisor' to avoid 'disarray' in the process. Second, on the Rule 56(d) motion, the court reviewed the district court's denial for abuse of discretion. The court found that Molosso did not diligently pursue discovery, noting that she had received multiple extensions but 'prioritized other cases over this one' and waited until 'the eve of her responsive deadline' to file her request. The court emphasized that 'a party suspends discovery at her own risk' and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
This decision reinforces the procedural requirement that students with disabilities must utilize the university's specific, centralized channels to request accommodations; informal discussions with faculty are insufficient to trigger the university's legal duty to accommodate. It also clarifies that courts will strictly scrutinize a party's diligence when evaluating motions for additional discovery, and failure to act promptly during granted continuances can result in the denial of such motions and the entry of summary judgment.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download