## Facts

- Joseph L. Stutts, Jr. was hired by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to work at the Colbert Steam Plant in Alabama, beginning as a temporary laborer in 1971 and becoming a permanent employee in 1973.
- In 1979, Stutts applied for TVA’s apprenticeship training program for heavy-equipment operators.
- TVA used the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB), administered by the Alabama State Employment Service, to predict an applicant’s probability of success in the program.
- Stutts had been diagnosed with dyslexia, which severely impaired his ability to read and caused difficulty performing well on written tests such as the GATB.
- Stutts received a “low” GATB score, and TVA rejected his application based on that score.
- After taking the GATB, Stutts underwent medical evaluations and nonwritten testing that indicated he had above-average intelligence, coordination, and aptitude for heavy-equipment operation.
- TVA attempted to obtain the results of Stutts’s nonwritten testing but was unable to secure them.
- TVA also attempted to have an oral version of the GATB administered, but the testing service declined because an orally administered version could not be scored in a way that could be accurately compared to the standardized written version.
- Stutts sued TVA officials, including S. David Freeman in his official capacity as chairman of TVA’s board, alleging that TVA violated § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by refusing to admit an otherwise qualified individual solely because of his disability.
- The district court granted summary judgment for TVA, reasoning that Stutts failed to show that he had qualifications comparable to nondisabled participants in the apprenticeship program; the court also denied Stutts’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.
- Stutts appealed to the Eleventh Circuit from the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion, effectively challenging the underlying summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the summary-judgment record raised genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Stutts was an “otherwise qualified” individual under § 504 for the heavy-equipment-operator apprenticeship program.
2. Whether TVA could obtain summary judgment when it denied Stutts solely for a low written GATB score despite knowing that dyslexia impaired his performance on written testing and despite other evidence suggesting job-related aptitude.
3. Whether TVA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on its efforts to obtain alternative evaluations and its inability to secure an oral GATB that could be scored consistently with the written test.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the denial of Stutts’s Rule 59(e) motion and reversed the grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court held that summary judgment was improper because the record contained material factual disputes concerning whether Stutts was “otherwise qualified” and whether TVA’s reliance on the written GATB—without an effective alternative method of evaluation—excluded him solely by reason of his disability.
- The court did not decide whether Stutts ultimately satisfied the “otherwise qualified handicapped individual” standard.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a covered entity may not exclude an “otherwise qualified” individual from a program or activity solely by reason of disability.
- “Otherwise qualified” is not determined solely by a screening device; it requires attention to the actual requirements of the position or program and whether the individual can meet those requirements with reasonable accommodation.
- A standardized written aptitude test that is significantly affected by a known reading-related disability can raise a triable § 504 question when the employer relies on the score as the sole basis for exclusion, especially where other evidence suggests the applicant may perform the work.
- An employer’s stated inability to use an oral version of a standardized written test (because of scoring comparability) does not automatically end the inquiry; the factfinder may still need to assess whether the challenged test measures abilities that are required for the position and whether other feasible evaluation methods exist.
- At the summary-judgment stage, courts must deny judgment where the evidence would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the plaintiff could perform the essential functions of the job and that the employer’s selection criteria screened the plaintiff out because of disability.
- § 504 does not require changes that would fundamentally alter a program or impose undue burdens, but those defenses generally require an evidentiary showing and are not resolved where the record leaves key facts in dispute.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that TVA was not entitled to summary judgment where it rejected a dyslexic employee’s apprenticeship application solely due to a low score on a written aptitude test that TVA knew was affected by his disability, and where other evidence suggested he had the intelligence and coordination for heavy-equipment operation; unresolved factual questions about job requirements, “otherwise qualified” status, and reasonable accommodation required remand.


Stutts v. Freeman, 694 F.2d 666 (1983)