## Facts

- David Stebbins enrolled as an undergraduate student at the University of Arkansas (UA) in August 2007 and registered with UA’s disability services office (the Center for Educational Access).
- Stebbins reported that he had Asperger’s syndrome and said it caused communication difficulties, including being “tactless” and sometimes “smart off” to authority figures; he asked for help dealing with those interactions but did not initially request a specific formal accommodation.
- Disability documentation provided to UA during fall 2007 reflected diagnoses that included Asperger’s Disorder and Intermittent Explosive Disorder, and described Stebbins as frequently verbally aggressive and sometimes physically aggressive.
- During fall 2007, Stebbins had repeated difficult encounters with UA personnel and became intensely angry over incidents others viewed as minor.
- At UA’s health center, Stebbins arrived late for an appointment to renew prescriptions. When rescheduled, he remarked that if he did not get medication refills, “there could be another Virginia Tech incident,” referencing the recent mass shooting at Virginia Tech.
- UA personnel treated the remark as a serious safety concern and testified it was not an isolated alarming statement in light of Stebbins’s other interactions.
- In December 2007, UA issued a ban barring Stebbins from campus based on safety and disruption concerns.
- Several years later, Stebbins sought to have the ban lifted and to re-enroll at UA. During that process, he sent UA’s chancellor a profane and malicious email; the only express threat in the email was to sue UA, but UA viewed the message as further support for its concern about Stebbins’s conduct.
- UA denied Stebbins’s request to re-enroll. Stebbins then sued UA under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging UA failed to accommodate his disability and discriminated by refusing readmission.
- Other claims in the lawsuit (including constitutional and employment-related claims) were dismissed before trial; the remaining § 504 claim was tried to the court in a bench trial.

## Issues

1. Whether Stebbins proved he was an “otherwise qualified” individual with a disability for purposes of re-enrollment, considering UA’s conduct and safety requirements.
2. Whether UA denied Stebbins re-enrollment “solely by reason of” disability, as required for liability under § 504.
3. Whether Stebbins identified a specific reasonable accommodation that UA failed to provide, and whether § 504 required UA to readmit him despite documented threatening or disruptive conduct.

## Decision

- After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendants (UA and the chancellor in his official capacity) on the § 504 claim.
- The court found that UA’s refusal to re-enroll Stebbins was based on his behavior and UA’s safety concerns rather than disability status alone, defeating the “solely by reason of” causation element.
- The court concluded Stebbins did not carry his burden to show he was otherwise qualified to return to campus in light of the record of threatening and disruptive communications.
- The court rejected the failure-to-accommodate theory because Stebbins did not show UA denied a concrete, reasonable accommodation that would have addressed UA’s legitimate safety concerns without excusing serious misconduct.

## Legal Principles

- To prevail under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must prove: (1) a disability; (2) that he is otherwise qualified to participate in the program with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination; and (4) the program receives federal financial assistance.
- § 504 requires proof that the challenged action occurred “solely by reason of” the plaintiff’s disability; a decision supported by independent, non-disability reasons (such as safety and conduct concerns) does not violate the statute.
- “Otherwise qualified” status in an educational setting includes meeting essential eligibility and conduct standards; disability law does not require an institution to disregard rules needed to protect the campus community.
- A school may consider credible evidence of threatening statements and disruptive behavior in deciding whether a student may attend, including whether the student poses a significant risk to others’ safety.
- Reasonable accommodation requires a specific, workable request tied to access; § 504 does not require accommodations that amount to excusing threats, intimidation, or comparable misconduct.

## Conclusion

The court held that UA did not violate § 504 by denying Stebbins re-enrollment because the decision rested on documented threats and related safety and conduct concerns, and Stebbins failed to show he was otherwise qualified or that UA refused a specific reasonable accommodation required by the Rehabilitation Act.


Stebbins v. University of Arkansas, Civil No.10-5125, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182620 (2012)