## Facts

- Fradus Lee Anderson, an African-American law student with alcoholism, sought readmission to the University of Wisconsin Law School after multiple academic failures and withdrawals.
- In his first enrollment (1979), Anderson’s average fell below the law school’s minimum (77) and he did not provide required proof of an undergraduate degree; he was not allowed to continue that academic year.
- The law school readmitted him for spring 1981 despite prior deficiencies and knowledge of his alcoholism; he performed poorly (including a D in legal writing) and, while intoxicated, harassed and threatened his legal writing partner; he then withdrew.
- The law school admitted him again in spring 1982; his cumulative average was 76.92, below the 77 minimum, and the school informed him he could not continue.
- Seeking a fourth readmission, Anderson claimed his academic problems stemmed from alcoholism and that he was in recovery; the law school’s policy permitted readmission when the cause of failure had been overcome.
- The Retentions Committee reviewed his request three times and concluded he had not overcome alcoholism (he generally abstained but still drank at times) and was unlikely to complete the program within the school’s timeframe.
- After Anderson filed a grievance, the Petitions Committee conducted a de novo review, considering his law school record, drinking history, and business school performance (one strong course grade but otherwise mixed to poor results, including a grade Anderson inaccurately reported); it denied readmission based on a poor prognosis for completion.
- Anderson sued alleging (1) disability discrimination under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and (2) race discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether denial of readmission violated § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because Anderson was excluded “solely by reason of” alcoholism, and whether he was “otherwise qualified” with or without reasonable accommodation.
2. Whether the denial of readmission constituted racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the University and associated defendants.
- The court held Anderson was not “otherwise qualified” under § 504 because his record showed he could not meet the law school’s legitimate academic requirements and completion expectations.
- The court held § 504 did not require the law school to relax or waive substantive academic standards or disregard actual academic and behavioral history.
- The court held Anderson produced no evidence that race played any role in the readmission decision, which rested on documented academic and conduct-based grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Section 504 bars exclusion of an otherwise qualified person with a disability from a covered program solely because of the disability.
- “Otherwise qualified” requires the ability to meet essential program requirements with reasonable accommodation; the statute does not require fundamental alteration of academic standards.
- Educational institutions may make individualized decisions based on a student’s demonstrated performance and prognosis, and may distinguish performance-based judgments from decisions grounded in disability stereotypes.
- An equal protection claim requires evidence of discriminatory intent or disparate treatment; repeated admissions and individualized review may weigh against an inference of racial animus absent proof of differential treatment or bias.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the law school’s denial of a fourth readmission request because the decision applied neutral academic and completion standards to Anderson’s documented performance and conduct, and the record contained no evidence that either alcoholism-based stereotyping or racial discrimination motivated the outcome.


Anderson v. Univ. of Wis., 841 F.2d 737 (7th Cir. 1988)