## Facts

- Steven Wynne enrolled at Tufts University School of Medicine in 1983 and performed poorly in his first year, failing eight of fifteen courses.
- Although academic guidelines typically required dismissal after five failures, Tufts allowed Wynne to repeat the first year.
- At Tufts’ expense, Wynne underwent neuropsychological testing in 1984, which identified cognitive weaknesses in processing discrete units of information but did not diagnose a specific learning disability.
- During the repeated year, Tufts provided tutors, counseling, note-takers, and other academic supports.
- Wynne passed all repeated first-year courses except pharmacology and biochemistry; he passed a make-up exam in pharmacology but failed biochemistry and was dismissed in September 1985.
- Wynne sued under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging Tufts discriminated by refusing to accommodate his asserted learning disability, particularly by declining to replace written multiple-choice biochemistry examinations with alternatives such as oral or essay testing.
- After an earlier remand requiring a fuller evidentiary showing, Tufts submitted detailed affidavits and documentation describing its consideration and rejection of alternative testing formats; the district court again granted summary judgment for Tufts.

## Issues

1. Whether, on summary judgment, Tufts produced sufficient evidence that it reasonably considered and rejected requested exam-format changes as accommodations under § 504.
2. Whether § 504 required Tufts to alter the biochemistry examination format where faculty concluded the changes would substantially modify essential academic standards or the program’s nature.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Tufts.
- The court held that Tufts’ augmented record showed a documented, reasoned deliberative process evaluating alternative testing methods, their feasibility, and their effect on the academic program.
- The court accepted Tufts’ academic judgment that substituting oral or essay exams for the multiple-choice exam would significantly alter how mastery of core biochemistry competencies was assessed and could lower academic standards.
- Given the school’s individualized consideration and the academic nature of the decision, the court deferred to faculty judgment and found no § 504 violation.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 504, an academic institution seeking summary judgment must produce evidence that it made a reasonable effort to explore accommodations, including considering alternatives, feasibility, cost, and effect on the academic program.
- § 504 requires reasonable accommodations for an otherwise qualified student but does not require modifications that would fundamentally alter the nature of the program or substantially change academic standards.
- Courts generally accord substantial deference to well-supported, professional academic judgments about essential requirements and the impact of proposed accommodations when the institution documents a thoughtful, individualized review rather than relying on conclusory assertions or stereotypes.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit concluded that Tufts satisfied § 504 by providing significant supports and by documenting a reasoned faculty process that considered and rejected alternative biochemistry exam formats as incompatible with essential program requirements; because the requested changes would have significantly altered academic standards, Tufts was entitled to summary judgment.


Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med., 976 F.2d 791 (1st Cir. 1992)