## Facts

- Arwen Bird, a Lewis & Clark College biology student, became a wheelchair user after an automobile accident.
- The College made various campus accessibility changes, including ramps, modified doors, remodeled bathrooms, and reconfigured biology labs.
- Bird applied to and was accepted into the College’s Spring 1996 Australia overseas program, a field-based program involving extensive travel and outdoor activities.
- Before departure, the College consulted an Australian program coordinator and discussed Bird’s medical needs and potential field-related limitations; Bird was told she could not join certain activities but would receive alternatives and was otherwise assured accommodations were feasible.
- During the program, Bird encountered substantial accessibility barriers at numerous locations, including lodging and bathroom access, and she participated in some but not all planned activities.
- The College presented evidence it paid for alternative transportation, paid students to assist Bird, provided a narrower wheelchair, arranged more accessible lodging at some sites, and planned some activities with Bird’s disability in mind.
- Bird sued alleging disability discrimination under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title III of the ADA, and also asserted a state-law breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim tied to the College’s organization and supervision of the overseas program.

## Issues

1. Whether the College discriminated on the basis of disability, in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title III of the ADA, by failing to provide reasonable accommodations in the Australia program.
2. Whether the district court erred in rejecting Bird’s equitable federal claims and in denying a new trial after the jury found no discrimination on the Rehabilitation Act damages claim.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying judgment as a matter of law against the jury’s verdict for Bird on the state-law breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment for the College on the Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict rejecting Bird’s Rehabilitation Act damages claim and affirmed denial of Bird’s motion for a new trial.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of the College’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Bird’s state-law breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, leaving the verdict for Bird intact.

## Legal Principles

- Rehabilitation Act § 504 and ADA Title III require reasonable accommodations for a qualified individual with a disability; they do not guarantee ideal access at every location or activity.
- In reviewing a defense verdict on discrimination, an appellate court will not reweigh conflicting evidence where a reasonable jury could credit evidence of accommodations and find no unlawful discrimination.
- Denial of a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion; a verdict supported by reasonable inferences from contested evidence will not be set aside.
- Under applicable state law, an educational institution’s relationship with students in a supervised overseas program can support a fiduciary-duty claim when evidence permits findings of reliance and breach; a jury verdict on that theory stands if supported by sufficient evidence.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the evidence allowed findings that the College made reasonable accommodation efforts in a field-based overseas program, defeating Bird’s federal disability-discrimination claims, while separately sustaining a jury determination that the College breached fiduciary duties owed to her in administering the program.


Bird v. Lewis & Clark Coll., 303 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2002)