After attempting suicide, students allege disability discrimination when their institutions do not want

them to return to campus, OCR investigates

SAU denied readmission unless he providedmedical documentation, release of medicalrecords, and a behavioral contract in additionto standard re-admission forms; not informedof these conditions when he withdrew. 2010

MHC told student she could be immediately withdrawn, or move off campus with a parent to finish out the semester. 2008

WMU told Jackson Peebles he was being involuntarily withdrawn after a suicide attempt and hospitalization. In the meeting with WMU staff, Peebles asked where he was supposed to go. 2013

Georgetown required additional conditions for reenrollment after a medical leave of absence; parents filed complaint on daughter’s behalf on the basis of disability discrimination; GU entered into a voluntary resolution agreement and revised policies. 2011

After attempting suicide, students allege disability discrimination when their institutions do not want

them to return to campus, OCR investigates

Students file suit against their college for disability discrimination

Jane Doe v. Hunter College of the City University of New York, Jennifer Raab, Eija Ayravainen. 2004

Jordan Nott v. The George Washington University, Trachtenberg, Lehman, Donnels, Sawyer, DePalma, Woolfson, Gieseke, Stafford, District Hospital Partners, Becker, GWU Medical Center, GW Medical Faculty Associates, Custodian of Records, GW Hospital Liaison, Eisenberg, and Chan. 2004

• Student seen by counseling staff on campus and a psychiatrist off campus for depression, diagnosed with bipolar disorder

• Took an prescription overdose, tried to induce vomiting, then went to Counseling Center who transferred him to the University Medical Center

What are the next steps from your position/perspective?

Case StudyW. P. v.

Hawkins v. College of Charleston

Stephen Hawkins lived on campus starting Fall 2009. He was living with cystic fibrosis and depression. Hawkins was allegedly cutting and was transported from his residence hall via ambulance on January 31 and again on February 9. His Hall Director wrote three incident reports outlining Hawkins’ behavior and his disruption of the community.

What are the next steps from your position/perspective?

Case Study

• Student (W. P. ) filed OCR complaint stating he was discriminated against because of his disability in July 2012 (not permitted to return until 2013)

• OCR dismissed complaint• Student appealed, and complaint is partially reopened• Fall 2013, student returned to Princeton and is still a

student there• March 26, 2014, the student filed suit alleging

violations of ADA, 504, and the FHA based on disability discrimination

• Defendants filed a dismissal of complaint on Nov. 24, 2014

W. P. v.

Hawkins v. College of Charleston

• Hawkins filed suit in February of 2012 for disability discrimination in violation of ADA and 504

• College files motion to dismiss for spoliation of evidence

• Hawkins admitted to intentionally deleting all content on his Facebook page (allegedly demonstrating his state of mind) , but did not believe it was relevant to the future litigation

• Facebook posts were briefly mentioned in one incident report; it was not mentioned in his eviction

• Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff ’s relevancy argument

• Case will proceed to trial

Where Do We Stand Legally?• Strong general view from Jain v. State of Iowa (2000) that universities and their

staff have no duty to protect even when they were aware of risko Touted Shin as a form of in loco parentiso Need to attend to privacy rights of students o Rights of students with mental health disabilities

• Lapp (2010) stated universities have no duty to protect unless… o The student was uniquely dependent on the college for protectiono The school created the risk of harm itself

• Duty to notify and protecto Schieszler in 2002 and Shin in 2005o Settled out of courto No appellate review

• Post Shin suicide case: Mahoney v. Allegheny Collegeo Applied Jain o Found no duty to notify or protect

• In my opinion, Jain is the best case to apply; always look at individual situation

Moving Forward

• Are there policies in place? • Are the policies transparent? Who knows?

Who needs to know?• What is the follow-up before/after an

incident/attempt?• Do you know your role? Initially? During?

After?

Implications for Practiceo Prevention efforts

Mental health services: available, affordable, confidential Means restriction Awareness campaign

o Model policies Working in collaboration with the student, family, and the treatment team Candid conversation about the array of options without coercion to separate from the institution Use involuntary withdrawal if student is a threat to others Utilize behavioral intervention team (BIT) that is trained- multiple perspectives from various professionals May use conduct process at same time as BIT process Policies are written and transparent

o What are the institutions/States doing?Kalchthaler, K. (2010). Wake-up call: Striking a balance between privacy rights and institutional liability in the student suicide crisis. The Review of Litigation, 29(4), 895-924. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/library/p61676/the-review-of-litigation

ReferencesAmericans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 35.139 (2015).

Arnett, J. J. (2011). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. In M. E. Wilson (Ed.), College student development theory (ASHE Reader Series, 2nd ed., pp. 149-164). Boston, MA: Pearson. (Reprinted from American Psychologist, 55, 469-480, by J. J. Arnett, 2000)

Benjamin, R. M. (2012). Preface from the surgeon general. In U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention: Goals and Objectives for Action, (pp.3-4). Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General and National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention. Retrieved from www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/ reports/national-strategy-suicide-prevention/index.html

Hauser, C., & O’Connor, A. (2007, April 16). Virginia Tech shooting leaves 33 dead. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Jain v. State of Iowa 617 N. W.2d 293 (Iowa 2000)

Kalchthaler, K. (2010). Wake-up call: Striking a balance between privacy rights and institutional liability in the student suicide crisis. The Review of Litigation, 29(4), 895-924.

Lannon, P., & Sanghavi, E. (2011). New Title II regulations regarding direct threat: Do they change how colleges and universities should treat students who are threats to themselves? NACUA Notes, 10(1), 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.nacua.org/

Lapp, D. J. (2010). The duty paradox: Getting it right after a decade of litigation involving the risk of student suicide. Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice, 17(1), 29-58.Retrieved from http://law.wlu.edu/crsj/

Lewis, W. S., Schuster, S. K., & Sokolow, B. A. (2012). Suicidal students, BITs and the direct threat standard. Retrieved from National Center for Higher Education Risk Management website: http://www.ncherm.org/

Mahoney v. Allegheny College, No. AD 892-2003 (Ct. Com. Pl. of Crawford County, Pa. Civ. Div. Dec. 22, 2005)

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

Stuart, S. P. (2012). “Hope and despondence”: Emerging adulthood and higher education’s relationship with its nonviolent mentally ill students. Journal of College and University Law, 38, 319-378. Retrieved from http://www.nacua.org/