## Facts

- Ronald G. Halasz, a transfer applicant with a documented learning disability and Tourette’s syndrome, applied to the University of New England (UNE), a private college receiving federal funds.
- UNE’s admissions decisions for transfer applicants relied on academic criteria including prior coursework, grades, recommendations, and standardized test scores; transfer applicants with a 2.5 GPA were considered but not guaranteed admission, and UNE rarely accepted transfers below a 2.0 GPA.
- UNE operated (1) an Individual Learning Program (ILP) for learning-disabled students who otherwise met admissions criteria and (2) a First Year Option (FYO), a transitional, non-matriculated program for learning-disabled students who did not meet regular admissions requirements.
- FYO students could seek regular admission only after earning at least a 2.0 GPA for two semesters, while receiving support services similar to ILP.
- Halasz had withdrawn from multiple prior colleges and had an overall GPA of about 1.98, along with extremely low standardized reading and SAT scores.
- Halasz contacted UNE about disability-related programs and accommodations; UNE requested information about his disabilities to evaluate program fit and accommodations.
- UNE denied Halasz regular transfer admission but admitted him to FYO and provided extensive support services.
- Halasz earned a 1.375 cumulative GPA in FYO; UNE then denied him regular admission after he failed to meet the 2.0 GPA requirement.
- Halasz sued under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging disability discrimination in both denials of regular admission and alleging improper preadmission disability inquiries.

## Issues

1. Whether UNE violated § 504 or implementing regulations by asking about the nature and extent of Halasz’s disabilities during the admissions process.
2. Whether UNE unlawfully discriminated under § 504 by denying Halasz regular transfer admission, or whether he was not “otherwise qualified” under neutral academic criteria.
3. Whether UNE unlawfully discriminated under § 504 by denying regular admission after FYO, or whether the denial was justified by Halasz’s failure to meet the program’s minimum GPA requirement despite accommodations.

## Decision

- The court granted UNE’s motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- UNE’s disability-related inquiries were lawful because Halasz raised disability issues and sought information about disability-support programs, and UNE used the information to evaluate program placement and accommodations rather than to exclude him.
- Halasz failed to show he was “otherwise qualified” for regular transfer admission; the record supported UNE’s reliance on legitimate academic criteria, including GPA and test scores.
- UNE’s denial of regular admission after FYO was not discriminatory because Halasz did not satisfy the essential 2.0 GPA requirement despite substantial support services and accommodations.
- Halasz did not produce competent evidence creating a genuine dispute that UNE’s stated academic reasons were pretext for disability discrimination.

## Legal Principles

- Section 504 prohibits exclusion or denial of benefits “solely by reason of” disability in federally funded programs, but protects only individuals who are “otherwise qualified” for the program at issue.
- In academic admissions and progression decisions, an applicant must show that, with reasonable accommodations, they can meet essential eligibility requirements; an institution need not waive or lower essential academic standards.
- Disability-related questions may be permissible when prompted by an applicant’s request for disability-program information or accommodations and when used for accommodation/program-placement purposes rather than as a basis for exclusion.
- On summary judgment, a § 504 plaintiff must present specific, competent evidence that they are otherwise qualified and that the adverse decision was because of disability; disagreement with academic judgment or conclusory assertions is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court held that UNE’s limited disability-related inquiries were permissible in context and that Halasz was not otherwise qualified for regular admission because he did not meet neutral academic standards, including minimum performance in UNE’s transitional program, so UNE was entitled to summary judgment on the § 504 claims.


Halasz v. Univ. of New Eng., 816 F. Supp. 37 (D. Me. 1993)