## Facts

- Kristy M. Coleman, a University of Nebraska–Lincoln (UNL) undergraduate with cerebral palsy, used a wheelchair and required personal-attendant assistance for daily living tasks.
- UNL residence-hall applicants could request single or double rooms; students requesting double rooms without naming a roommate were ordinarily placed into a pool for random roommate assignment.
- UNL’s Residence Hall Handbook stated that roommate assignments would not be made based on “handicap.”
- UNL maintained an unwritten policy that students with disabilities needing personal-attendant care would not receive a randomly assigned roommate in a double room unless there was a mutual, specific roommate request.
- Coleman requested a double room in Selleck Hall with a nonsmoking roommate but did not name a roommate, expecting random assignment.
- UNL assigned Coleman to a room in Selleck Hall without a roommate and later explained it would not randomly assign her a roommate due to her disability-related attendant-care needs.
- After Coleman complained to federal civil-rights authorities, UNL attempted to find a volunteer roommate, but no student volunteered; UNL still refused to use its ordinary random-assignment process.
- Coleman sued UNL officials and the Board of Regents, alleging disability discrimination under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

## Issues

1. Whether UNL’s policy refusing to randomly assign a roommate to a disabled student who requires personal-attendant care, absent a mutual specific roommate request, unlawfully discriminated under ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act § 504.
2. Whether Coleman was a “qualified” (or “otherwise qualified”) individual eligible to participate in UNL’s double-room/random-roommate assignment program, with or without reasonable modification.

## Decision

- The court found Coleman was a qualified individual with a disability eligible for UNL’s double-room and random-roommate assignment program.
- The court held UNL’s categorical exclusion of students needing attendant care from random roommate assignment denied program benefits by reason of disability, violating ADA Title II and § 504.
- The court rejected UNL’s asserted justifications (embarrassment concerns, anticipated roommate discomfort, potential room-change requests, space/logistics, and administrative preference for a volunteer-only approach) as insufficient to justify exclusion.
- The court entered judgment for Coleman.

## Legal Principles

- ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act § 504 prohibit a public university from excluding a qualified individual with a disability from participation in, or denying benefits of, the university’s services, programs, or activities by reason of disability.
- A university housing roommate-assignment system can constitute a covered “service” or “program,” and equal access applies to the manner of participation (including eligibility for random assignment), not only physical access to housing.
- A plaintiff is “qualified/otherwise qualified” when she meets the non-disability eligibility requirements for the program; disability-related assumptions do not negate eligibility absent a valid, evidence-based essential requirement.
- Categorical policies that single out disability-related needs (such as attendant care) for exclusion are discriminatory unless justified by legitimate program requirements and consistent with reasonable modification duties.
- Paternalistic judgments about a disabled person’s supposed embarrassment, and anticipated discomfort or prejudice of others, are not lawful bases to deny equal access to a program benefit.
- Administrative convenience and creating a separate, more burdensome participation path (e.g., requiring a volunteer roommate) do not justify denying disabled students access to the standard program absent a showing of fundamental alteration or undue burden.

## Conclusion

The court held that UNL unlawfully discriminated under ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act § 504 by barring a student who required personal-attendant care from the ordinary random roommate assignment process, because she otherwise met the housing program’s eligibility requirements and the university’s reasons for exclusion were not legally sufficient.


Coleman v. Zatechka, 824 F. Supp. 1360 (D. Neb. 1993)