Southern Community College V. Davis Case Summary

Southeastern Community College, v. Davis. 442 U.S. 397 (1979)
Decision by Supreme Court of United States
FACTS: Respondent, Davis, a licensed LPN for over ten years who also lives with hearing loss applied for admissions to Southeastern Community College. The Petitioner, requested Davis see an audiologist before accepting her to the RN program. The audiologist concluded that Davis required lip-read in order to fully understand audible communication. The school subsequently denied Davis entry, assuming her hearing loss would affect her ability to effective care for patients safely.
Since Southeastern Community College receive federal funds, Davis filed suit in North Carolina Federal District Court, alleging her dismissal was a violation of 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Rehabilitation act of 1973 acts to protect discrimination agents students or employees "otherwise qualified handicapped individual solely by reason of his handicap.” In addition the act states that “no otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . Shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any

program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 29 USC Section 794(a)
North Carolina District Court judged in favor of Southeastern Community College.

Agreeing that her dismissal was not discriminatory, or a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation act 1973. The courts too believed that Davis hearing loss would prevent her from successfully working as an RN and there for denied entry in to training was agreeable. The appeals Court reversed the findings, stating that District Court misinterpreted section 504 of “otherwise qualified.” More so the forth circuit disagreed that an individuals disability, such as Davis hearing loss even be considered as part of qualification measurements in to any such federally funded program. In addition “reasonable accommodations” have to be made. Southeaster University appealed to the U.S. Supreme

Court.
LEGAL QUESTION: Was dismissing Davis admissions into Southeastern Community College nursing program a violations affirmative action, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which insures protection for students and employees from being discriminated biased off disabilities.
DECISION: No. (A unanimous decision written by Justice Powell).
COURT'S RATIONALE: The United States Supreme Court agreed with North Caroline District court on the interpretation of section 504 "otherwise qualified.” In this caste the Supreme Court agrees that even with “reasonable accommodations,” the student potentially could not perform safely and there for was not “otherwise qualified.” In addition, unlike the Forth circuit, the Supreme court felt that section 504 does not have the language indicating if an individuals with disabilities have their disabilities be taken into account for admissions, or qualifications. DISSENTING OPINION: (Written by Justice Lewis F. Powell )
The dissent argued that the Rehabilitation act provides accomidationis for one who is "otherwise qualified" interpreted as one who still can meet all qualifications "in spite of his handicap.” Since Davis depended on lip-reading and hearing aids for communication she is not considered to be "otherwise qualified." Since Davis could not be admitted to Southeastern's program without substantial changes to admission requirements, Davis' rejection did not constitute unlawful discrimination.There for concluding admissions should not be granted to Davis and no violations oaf affirmative actions have been made on part of the petitioners.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE: The significance of this case is that it creates a standard for “reasonable accommodations,” putting limitations or permitters on individuals based off being “otherwise qualified.” Otherwise qualified, now being defined explicitly as one who can still preform all duties in spite of their disabilities. These same interpretations for reasonable accommodations from this case have also been applied to 1996 American with Disability Act.