## Facts

- Michael S. Argenyi, a medical student with a significant hearing impairment, primarily communicated through spoken language and relied on cued speech; he did not know sign language.
- Argenyi had used Communication Access Real-time Transcription (CART) and related services successfully in prior educational settings.
- Before enrolling at Creighton University’s medical school, Argenyi requested accommodations including CART for lectures and small-group instruction and a cued-speech/oral interpreter, particularly for clinical interactions.
- Creighton declined to provide CART and interpreters, offering instead an FM amplification system and note-taking services.
- During his first two years, Argenyi repeatedly renewed his requests, asserting he could not reliably follow lectures, participate in labs, or communicate with patients and classmates using only the offered accommodations.
- Argenyi provided multiple letters from medical and audiological specialists supporting his need for CART and interpreter services to have equal access.
- Argenyi paid for CART and related services himself through substantial private loans.
- In opposing summary judgment, Argenyi submitted a sworn affidavit describing persistent communication barriers despite Creighton’s offered aids; the district court discounted the affidavit as “self-serving.”

## Issues

1. Whether Title III of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act require a medical school to provide requested auxiliary aids (CART and interpreters) when necessary to ensure effective communication and meaningful access comparable to nondisabled peers.
2. Whether the district court improperly granted summary judgment by applying an overly narrow “necessity” standard and by discounting Argenyi’s affidavit and corroborating evidence.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying Creighton’s request for costs (raised by cross-appeal).

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Creighton and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the proper inquiry is whether reasonable auxiliary aids and services are necessary to provide meaningful access and an equal opportunity to gain the same benefit as nondisabled peers, not merely whether the student can pass courses.
- The court concluded the record evidence, including Argenyi’s affidavit and corroborating documentation, created a genuine dispute of material fact on whether denying CART and interpreters denied effective communication and equal opportunity.
- The court did not reach Creighton’s cross-appeal on costs because the reversal on the merits altered the case posture.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title III of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, covered educational institutions must provide reasonable auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective communication and meaningful access.
- “Necessity” is measured by whether the accommodation is needed to provide access as effective as that afforded to others, not by minimal access or the ability to obtain some educational benefit.
- At summary judgment, a party’s sworn affidavit is competent evidence and cannot be disregarded merely as “self-serving,” particularly when supported by independent documentation.
- Judicial deference to academic judgments does not displace statutory obligations; categorical refusals to consider aids (including in clinical settings) may require fact-specific justification under disability-discrimination standards.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that a medical school’s obligations under ADA Title III and § 504 turn on whether the student receives effective communication and meaningful access equivalent to peers, and it remanded because evidence could support a finding that denying CART and interpreters unlawfully denied equal educational opportunity.


Argenyi v. Creighton Univ., 703 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2013)