## Facts

- Southeastern Community College, a North Carolina state community college receiving federal financial assistance, operated a registered nurse (RN) program with clinical training requirements.
- Frances B. Davis applied for admission to the RN program and had a significant hearing impairment.
- An audiologist reported that, even with a hearing aid, Davis could not understand speech except through lip-reading.
- The College concluded Davis’s hearing limitation would prevent her from safely participating in the normal clinical training program and from providing safe patient care in typical nursing environments.
- The College denied Davis admission to the nursing program based on its assessment of safety and clinical performance requirements.
- Davis sued under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, alleging unlawful exclusion from a federally funded program solely by reason of handicap.
- The district court found for the College, holding Davis was not an “otherwise qualified handicapped individual” because her impairment prevented safe performance in training and the profession.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed without disturbing the factual findings, reading § 504 and agency regulations to require reconsideration “without regard to” hearing ability and implying a duty to modify the program.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. What constitutes an “otherwise qualified handicapped individual” under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
2. Whether § 504 requires a federally funded educational program to lower essential standards or make substantial program modifications to accommodate an applicant with a disability.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Fourth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held there was no § 504 violation because Davis was not “otherwise qualified” for the nursing program.
- The Court defined an “otherwise qualified handicapped individual” as one able to meet all program requirements despite the handicap.
- The Court held § 504 permits educational institutions to require reasonable physical qualifications for admission to clinical training programs.
- The Court rejected the view that § 504 imposes an affirmative-action-type obligation on funding recipients.
- The Court held § 504 does not require institutions to lower standards or to make substantial modifications to accommodate a handicapped person.
- Accepting the district court’s findings, the Court concluded that the ability to respond to oral instructions and auditory signals in clinical settings was essential to nursing education and patient safety, and Davis could not meet those essential requirements without fundamental changes to the program.

## Legal Principles

- § 504 bars exclusion from federally funded programs “solely by reason of” disability, but does not eliminate legitimate, essential program requirements.
- An “otherwise qualified” individual is one who can meet all essential requirements of the program in spite of the disability.
- Recipients of federal financial assistance are not required by § 504 to lower essential standards or to make substantial or fundamental program modifications to accommodate a person with a disability.
- Agency regulations interpreting § 504 may receive respect, but cannot be applied in a way that conflicts with the statute’s text, purpose, and history.
- The Rehabilitation Act distinguishes between nondiscrimination duties under § 504 and more affirmative obligations imposed elsewhere in the statute, supporting a limited accommodation duty for funding recipients.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 504 protects qualified individuals from disability-based exclusion, but it does not require federally funded educational programs—particularly clinical training programs implicating patient safety—to waive essential requirements or undertake substantial program changes for an applicant who cannot meet those requirements.


Southeastern Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979)