Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 13:279–296, 2014

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1536-710X print=1536-7118 online
DOI: 10.1080/1536710X.2014.961113

Seven Rules to Live by: Accommodations in

Social Work Education and the Field

SUSAN LOUISE NEELY-BARNES

Department of Social Work, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, USA

HEATHER A. MCCABE
School of Social Work, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

CRAIG P. BARNES
Memphis Area Legal Services, Memphis, Tennessee, USA

Students with disabilities are a growing population in higher

education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). Provid-
ing accommodations for students with disabilities can raise ethical
and social justice questions and pose challenges for social work
faculty, administrators, and field instructors. Social work educators
must balance the legal mandates for nondiscrimination and reason-
able accommodation against ethical obligations around protection
of clients and preparation for practice. This article presents case
examples in the context of legal analysis to help social work educa-
tors make difficult decisions about student academic performance.

KEYWORDS accommodations, ADA, disability policy, law, social

work and disability, social work education, social work profession
and disability, students with disabilities

MEGAN’S CASE

Megan is a 26-year-old recent graduate of a small liberal arts program. After

high school, Megan was in a serious car wreck. Megan suffered a traumatic
brain injury but she made a good recovery and went on to graduate college,
progressing through her course work at a somewhat slower pace than her

Address correspondence to Susan Louise Neely-Barnes, Ph.D., Associate Professor,

Department of Social Work, University of Memphis, 226 McCord Hall, Memphis, TN 38152,
USA. E-mail: snlybrns@memphis.edu

279
280 S. L. Neely-Barnes et al.

peers and finishing a major in sociology. Megan applied and was accepted to
the master’s in social work (MSW) program at your institution. Her references
commented on her remarkable ability to overcome obstacles and persevere.
Her essay was well written, describing her experience since the accident and
the motivation that her recovery gave her to enter the field of social work.
Megan is now in the first year of the MSW program. Megan registered
with your institution’s Office of Disability Services and has a letter of accom-
modation asking for a note taker, extra time on tests, and a private testing
area. Faculty members have been making accommodations per the instruc-
tions in the letter. Yet, a couple of faculty have commented that Megan
has a difficult time staying on topic when she makes comments in class
and spends a lot of time talking about her personal experience. They are con-
cerned about her ability to generalize material to other client experiences.
Yesterday, the field coordinator received a call from her placement.
Megan has been placed at a local hospital for approximately one month.
The field instructor is concerned that Megan has a difficult time engaging cli-
ents. She has difficulty planning questions, with verbal following, and empa-
thetic responding. The field instructor is going to work with her for the next
few weeks, but is unsure whether she is going to be able to keep Megan.
After speaking with the Office of Disability Services, it is determined that
the behaviors about which the placement has concerns are likely a result of
her disability. Your school has both a strong philosophical emphasis on
accommodating all persons and a good history of doing so. Yet, you are
wondering if it is appropriate to keep a student who has so much difficulty
interacting with clients.

BACKGROUND

Nearly 11% of undergraduates and 7.5% of graduate students in higher edu-

cation today have disabilities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009).
Of the students with disabilities in higher education, most have a learning
disability (31%), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; 18%), or
another mental health or psychological condition (15%; Raue & Lewis,
2011). Social work programs, both at the master’s and the baccalaureate
levels, enroll students with disabilities at approximately the same rate as
the wider university (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009).
Much has been written about disability accommodations in higher
education settings. For example, Hawke (2004) discussed the application
of federal laws to accommodating students with disabilities in community
college settings. Green (2009) discussed the steps that academic
libraries should take to ensure compliance with federal disability law. Other
authors have considered how laws regarding disability accommodations
apply to student veterans (Shackelford, 2009) or disruptive students
 Accommodations in Social Work Education 281

(Noonan-Day & Jennings, 2007). Shaw, Keenan, Madaus, and Banerjee

(2010) examined requirements for disability documentation and the implica-
tions for offices of disability services. Scholars in the fields of occupational
therapy (Gupta, Gelpi, & Sain, 2005) and nursing (Konur, 2002) have
considered how federal disability laws apply to their fields.
A small body of literature has also studied how disability accommo-
dations apply to social work practice and social work education. Some
Canadian scholars of social work have considered disability accommodations
in the context of Canadian laws (Dunn, Hanes, Hardie, & MacDonald, 2006;
Pardo & Tomlinson, n.d.). Watkinson and Chalmers (2008) wrote about
the issue, not only in regard to Canadian laws, but also with respect to
international human rights. U.S. scholars have also examined the issue from
a variety of viewpoints. Some scholars have analyzed the issue of human
service agency accommodations, both for clients and employees (Orlin,
1995; O’Brien & Ellegood, 2005; Pardeck, 1997). Karger and Rose (2010)
examined how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its application
in schools of social work can, in rare circumstances, create a tension between
the ethics of inclusion and the charge to ensure clients receive ‘‘the highest
level of service from the best trained graduates’’ (p. 82). GlenMaye and Bolin
(2007) also highlighted the ethical tensions inherent in these accommodation
cases. They posited, ‘‘Educators seem caught between their commitment
to the gatekeeping function of social work and their wish to see students
do well and succeed in their programs’’ (p. 117).
The issue of gatekeeping was further developed by Sowbel (2012). That
article addresses the ambivalence of the educational community to enforce
the gatekeeping role, defined as ‘‘the professional obligation of social work
educators to ensure that graduates are fit to practice social work by screening
out unqualified students who may cause harm to clients’’ (Sowbel, 2012,
p. 27, quoting Moore & Urwin, 1991). After an extensive review, Sowbel
outlines four factors contributing to ineffective gatekeeping: ‘‘(1) fear of
litigation, (2) unclear suitability criteria, (3) conflicting educator roles, and
(4) a lack of valid measures or protocols for evaluating students in the field’’
(pp. 29–30). Work remains to be done in all four areas.
The social work literature lacks a paper that addresses fear of litigation
by examining the court’s interpretations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act and the ADA with its recent modifications through the Americans with
Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAA, 2008). With additional information, fear
surrounding the legal concerns can be replaced with information. Clearly
schools should always consult with their institutional counsel when faced
with a specific case scenario. However, it is possible to make some broad
statements about the current law and explain the implications for social work
educators. If social work educators can apply knowledge of current law to
situations such as Megan’s case, they can make the best possible decisions
on behalf of both students and the clients that they serve.
282 S. L. Neely-Barnes et al.

APPLICABLE LAWS

The most important pieces of federal legislation for social work programs to
consider are Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which was first passed in
1973 and was amended in 1978 and the ADA, which was passed in 1990 and
amended in 2008. Both of these acts are civil rights laws designed to ensure
access for persons with disabilities. Most lawsuits that are filed against institu-
tions of higher education related to disability discrimination claim a violation
of one or both of these acts. Although both of these acts work to provide
persons with disabilities with access, they use different methodologies to
do so. Major differences between the two are (a) how much protection they
provide, and (b) the definitions of key terminologies, which impact who can
be served and what must be done to serve them. The scope of the protec-
tions, key terminologies, and definitions are outlined in Table 1.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

The stated purpose of the Rehabilitation Act is to ‘‘empower individuals with
disabilities to maximize employment, economic self-sufficiency, indepen-
dence, and inclusion and integration into society’’ (29 U.S.C. Section 701).
The Act authorizes funding for vocational rehabilitation, independent living,
supported employment, supportive services, research, and demonstrative
services. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (hereafter Section 504)
concerns discrimination against people with disabilities in federally funded
programs. It specifically states that ‘‘no otherwise qualified individual with
a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from
participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any program receiving Federal financial assistance’’ (29 U.S.C.
Section 794). Colleges, universities, postsecondary institutions, and systems
of higher education are included in the definition of federal programs or
activities because they receive federal funds, primarily through student loans.
The regulations under Section 504 mandate that, in addition to being
equitable, a school’s proceedings ‘‘incorporate appropriate due process pro-
cedures’’ (Guckenberger v. Boston University, 1997, fn. 33; citing 34 C.F.R. x
104.7(b)). Therefore, if students feel they are not receiving services in com-
pliance with Section 504, the institution must have a process for the student
to protest and seek relief.

The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Americans with

Disabilities Amendment Act
The ADA of 1990 broadened the protections of the Rehabilitation Act
to private-sector employment, state and local government activities, and
the public sector, including transportation and telecommunications
 TABLE 1 Comparison of Definitions Concerning Disability Accommodation

The Rehabilitation Act (1973) ADA (1990) as modified by ADAA (2008)

Covered entity Federally funded programs including colleges,
universities, postsecondary institutions, and
systems of higher education.
Qualified A person who would otherwise meet criteria for
individual admissions or employment if he or she did not
have a disability.
Person with a Having an impairment that substantially limits one
disability or more major life activities even with the help
of medications, aids, or devices.
Reasonable Not causing undue hardship to the institution.
accommodation
Private-sector employment, state and local government activities,
and the public sector, including transportation and
telecommunications.
An individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable
modifications to rules, policies, or practices, meets the essential
eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the
participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.
Having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one
or more major life activities of such an individual; a record of such
impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment.
Reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures unless
an entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would
fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities,

283
privileges, advantages, or accommodations.
Major life activities Not defined. Include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual
tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting,
bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating,
thinking, communicating, and working. Determination of major
life activity is made without regard to ameliorative effects of
mitigating measures (Pub. L. 110-325, Section 4.2).
Major bodily One or more of the following body systems: Include but are not limited to, functions of the immune system,
functions neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain,
organs; respiratory, including speech organs; respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions
cardiovascular; reproductive; digestive; (Pub. L. 110-325, Section 4.2).
genito-urinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; and
endocrine.
Being regarded as Not defined Includes impairments that are episodic or in remission if the
having an disability would limit a major life activity when active. Includes
impairment perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not it limits a
major life activity (Pub. L. 110-325, Section 4.3).
284 S. L. Neely-Barnes et al.

(Karger & Rose, 2010). Each of these areas is covered under five different
titles of the ADA, but generally schools most frequently deal with Title I (pro-
hibition of discrimination in employment) and Title II (requiring state and
local governments to make their programs and services accessible to people
with disabilities). The ADAA clarified some of the provisions of the ADA by
ensuring that the courts interpreted the definition of those qualified persons
with a disability in a broader manner than the courts had been defining them
under the ADA (see Table 1 for final definitions). The purpose of the ADAA
was to respond to U.S. Supreme Court decisions that had narrowed the defi-
nition of disability and of an individual with a disability, in particular the deci-
sions in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc. (1999) and Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams (2002). In Sutton, the Supreme
Court found that a person did not have a disability if her impairment could
be ameliorated (e.g., 20=200 vision corrected with eyeglasses but still pre-
cluding Sutton from employment). In Williams, the Court applied a narrow
definition of major life activities to determine disability (e.g., carpal tunnel
syndrome did not qualify Williams for protection under the ADA, although
it required accommodations for her work because it did not impact a major
life activity).
In the text of the amendment, Congress specified that the U.S. Supreme
Court had misinterpreted the intent of the original ADA when it limited the
definition of disability. The ADAA broadened the protections of the ADA
by clarifying and broadening the definitions of major life activities, major
bodily functions, and being regarded as having an impairment (see
Table 1 for the definition following the changes). In addition to defining
these terms, the ADAA clarified that an impairment that substantially limits
a major life activity qualifies as a disability without regard to the ameliorative
effects of measures such as medication, medical supplies, equipment,
prosthetics, assistive technology, reasonable accommodations, behavioral
modifications, or neurological modifications (Section 4.3). Taken together,
the ADA and clarifications provided under the ADAA provide discrimination
protections to people with disabilities.

INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW

Case law refers to the court cases that interpret laws. The cases can assist
universities in understanding how a court might view anticipated actions.
We begin our analysis of the rule of law regarding the ADA, the Rehabili-
tation Act, and higher education with two landmark decisions: Southeastern
Community College v. Davis (1979) and Regents of the University of Michigan
v. Ewing (1985). Because both of these cases were heard by the U.S. Supreme
Court, they are the most prominent cases pertaining to higher education and
Section 504 or the ADA.
 Accommodations in Social Work Education 285

Southeastern Community College v. Davis

In Davis, the Supreme Court examined Section 504 in the context of higher
education for the first time. The plaintiff, Frances Davis, applied to the nurs-
ing program at Southeastern Community College in North Carolina. During
her interview process for admission, it became apparent to the faculty that
she was hearing impaired. Subsequently, she was denied admission. Davis
asked for reconsideration, and the entire nursing staff of Southeastern con-
vened to make a decision on her application. The nursing faculty decided
that ‘‘it would be impossible for [her] to participate safely in the normal clini-
cal training program’’ and that her hearing impairment could ‘‘interfere with
her safely caring for patients’’ (Southeastern Community College v. Davis,
1979, pp. 401–402). The Supreme Court found that Section 504 does not
compel educational institutions to disregard an individual’s disability, nor
does it require the program to make substantial modifications. The Court
held that:

There was no violation of Section 504 when (Southeastern Community

College) concluded that (Davis) did not qualify for admission to its pro-
gram. Nothing in the language or history of Section 504 limits the free-
dom of an educational institution to require reasonable physical
qualifications for admission to a clinical training program. (Southeastern
Community College v. Davis, 1979, p. 397)

As late as 1985, the Supreme Court continued to affirm its decision in

Davis (Alexander v. Choate, 1985).

Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing

Ewing involved a student, Scott E. Ewing, who was dismissed from a six-year
undergraduate degree and medical degree program when he made the low-
est score on a qualifying exam in the history of the program. Ewing requested
to retake the examination, but his request was denied. The Court found in
favor of the Regents, holding that, ‘‘When judges are asked to review the sub-
stance of a genuinely academic decision . . . they should show great respect
for the faculty’s professional judgment.’’ The Supreme Court found that a
court should not substitute its own opinion for that of the faculty’s pro-
fessional judgment unless there is a ‘‘substantial departure from accepted
academic norms’’ (Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 1985,
p. 225).
The holding in Ewing has been cited regularly by courts over the last
27 years for the proposition that it is not the purview of the courts to make
decisions about academic matters. The rule of law that has emerged from
Ewing and its progeny is that if an academic decision is made in accordance
with established university policies and procedures, the courts should let
286 S. L. Neely-Barnes et al.

TABLE 2 Selected Court Cases Concerning Disability Accommodation and Higher Education

Case Court Holdings

Southeastern U.S. Supreme . Section 504 requires reasonable accommodations,

Community Court not substantial modifications.
College v. . An educational institution can require reasonable
Davis (1979) physical qualifications.
. Section 504 does not require affirmative action.
Regents of the U.S. Supreme . Judges should show great respect for faculty
University of Court professional judgment.
Michigan v. . Courts should not override a faculty decision unless
Ewing (1985) there is substantial departure from accepted
academic norms.
Wynne v. Tufts 1st Circuit . An academic institution must demonstrate that it
University considered alternative means of accommodation,
School of their cost, their feasibility, and their effect, and
Medicine came to justifiable conclusion that accommodations
(1991) would lower academic standards or require
substantial program modification.
Guckenberger v. District Court of . An institution must demonstrate that their disability
Boston Massachusetts testing and screening process is a necessary part of
University the accommodations process and not unduly
(1997) burdensome or discriminatory.
. A student who is denied accommodations should
have a right to due process through an unbiased
grievance procedure at the institution.
. An educational institution does not have to
fundamentally alter a program of study by changing
curricular requirements. The decision as to whether
a program of study will be changed should be
made on the basis of faculty expertise.
Gent v. Radford District Court of . Applicant to a program must be able to show that
University Western District he or she is an otherwise qualified individual.
(1997) of Virginia
Kaltenberger v. 6th Circuit . A higher education institution is not obligated to
Ohio College of provide accommodation until the student has
Podiatric provided proper diagnosis.
Medicine
(1998)
Amir v. St. Louis 8th Circuit . Permission to complete a course at another
University university or with another supervising faculty
(1999) member can be considered a substantial
modification.
. A change in policy can be considered retaliatory if
it appears to occur as a result of one student’s
request for accommodations.
Wong v. Regents 9th Circuit . Court would not defer to medical school’s
of the determinations that accommodations were not
University of reasonable and the school’s determination that
California Wong could not meet requirements with
(1999) accommodations without an adequate inquiry by
the school.
Zukle v. Regents 9th Circuit . The court should defer to the evaluation made by
of the the institution absent proof that its standards and

(Continued)
 Accommodations in Social Work Education 287

TABLE 2 Continued

Case Court Holdings

University of application of them serve no purpose other than to

California deny education to a person with a disability.
(1999) . An accommodation need not require a substantial
curricular modification.
Carten v. Kent 6th Circuit . An institution is not required to accommodate
State absent any evidence that the student had the
University disability or requested accommodations.
(2003)
Harnett v. 2nd Circuit . Transferring a student from one cluster group to
Fielding another is a substantial modification, not a
Graduate reasonable accommodation.
Institute (2006) . Deferral of admission could be considered a
reasonable accommodation.
. Program was not required to lower a standard set
by an accrediting body to accommodate a student.
Mershon v. 8th Circuit . An institution can dismiss a student with a disability
St. Louis from campus if there is reason to believe that the
University student made a threat against a faculty member.
(2006) Such a dismissal does not constitute disability
discrimination.
. A plaintiff must substantiate his or her claim that an
institution failed to provide accommodations.
Klene v. Trustees 7th Circuit . Neither Section 504 nor Title II of the ADA requires
of Indiana a university to lower standards of its program.
University . An accommodation is not reasonable if it requires
(2011) fundamental alteration of a program.

it stand (see, e.g., Doe v. Oklahoma City University School of Law, 2010;
Kaltenberger v. Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine, 1998; Klene v. Trustees
of Indiana University, 2011; Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine,
1991).
Although Regents and Ewing are the two most frequently cited cases
from the Supreme Court in this area, many other cases have been brought
in the lower courts; taken together, they provide information to help guide
schools in determining what is typically required of them. Table 2 is a list
of cases and the holdings (or decisions) that can be understood from
each case.

SECTION 504 AND ADA CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST

SOCIAL WORK PROGRAMS

Only two federal cases involving a plaintiff raising a claim of discrimination

under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA against social work
academic programs could be located: Gent v. Radford University (1997)
and Klene v. Trustees of Indiana University (2011). Gent is a very short case
288 S. L. Neely-Barnes et al.

involving a claim of disability discrimination in the admissions process. It was

dismissed because the plaintiff could not demonstrate that he met the mini-
mum requirements for admissions. Klene v. Trustees of Indiana University
(2010, 2011), however, has relevant information providing guidance to social
work faculty and administrators. By outlining the facts in Klene, we illustrate
how the federal courts have treated a case of questionable competence by a
social work student in the field and how they might rule in similar cases, like
the hypothetical Megan’s case that we described in the beginning of this
article.
In Klene, Cama Klene filed a complaint in federal court claiming that
Indiana University discriminated against her on the basis of disability and vio-
lated her rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the
ADA when it dismissed her from the bachelor of social work (BSW) program.
Klene also claimed that the University retaliated against her by changing her
grade after she filed an Affirmative Action complaint. The University dis-
missed Klene from the BSW program because of her failure to complete
the requirements of her junior year field practicum (Klene v. Trustees of
Indiana University, 2011). According to the record, Klene’s placement at a
field site was hampered by her failure to attend required orientation meetings
and complete the required paperwork the semester before she was to enroll
in Social Work Practicum I.
However, according to the court record, the school made four attempts
to secure a placement for Klene. In the first attempt, Klene was interviewed
and declined by an agency ‘‘citing inappropriate and excessive self-
disclosure’’ (Klene v. Trustees of Indiana University, 2010, p. 3). The second
agency offered Klene a field placement but terminated it when the duties
involved physical tasks that Klene could not perform. Klene asked for a
modified field placement from home, but the school rejected it, saying that
it would not satisfy the essential purpose of the course. Klene began a third
placement on April 4, 2006. Shortly before this placement began, the BSW
Program Director met with Klene to make sure she understood the school’s
expectations regarding her placement. A few weeks later, Klene’s third place-
ment was terminated citing that ‘‘Klene had engaged in professional bound-
ary violations, exhibited a lack of initiative, dependency, and cognitive
performance deficiencies’’ (Klene v. Trustees of Indiana University, 2010,
p. 4).
In all, Klene had been terminated from two practicum placements and
failed the interview at another. The University had never before allowed a
student to have more than two failed placements. Despite this policy,
Klene was allowed one final placement on May 16, 2006. The University con-
vened a meeting with Klene in attendance and generated a list of the accom-
modations already provided to her. The list included allowing her to
(a) continue the course even though she did not have a placement; (b) com-
plete activities in another course that she was taking contemporaneously that
 Accommodations in Social Work Education 289

were supposed to be based on her practicum; (c) submit tardy practicum

paperwork; and (d) take multiple interviews and practicum placements.
The attendees of the meeting also asked Klene to complete a functional
capacity evaluation. The evaluation revealed that Klene would be function-
ally independent with an electric wheelchair and recommended that she
purchase one. The University also provided Klene with two additional
accommodations for her next placement: (a) transportation to and from
the placement paid for by Indiana’s Vocational Rehabilitation services; and
(b) permission to take notes using voice recognition software. A few weeks
later, Klene was dismissed from the fourth placement due to poor attendance
and a National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics viola-
tion for having clients push her wheelchair. Klene received a grade of F in
the BSW Field Practicum I course and was notified of the grade in writing
(Klene v. Trustees of Indiana University, 2010).
The court held that ‘‘neither Section 504 nor Title II of the ADA require a
university to lower standards of the BSW practicum program to accommo-
date a disabled student.’’ The Court found that ‘‘To permit Klene to continue
in the BSW program without completing the practicum portion of course
S381 would significantly lower the standards of the program’’ (Klene v.
Trustees of Indiana University, 2010, Section II). The court found that Indiana
University provided several accommodations for Klene, but Klene was not
able to complete the field practicum portion of the course in a timely man-
ner. Therefore, Klene was not an otherwise qualified person with a disability
due to her failure to complete the course. Based on its findings, the court
granted the University’s motion for summary judgment.
Klene appealed her case to the Seventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of
Appeals. Upholding the decision of the District Court, the Circuit Court held
that ‘‘an accommodation is not reasonable if it requires a fundamental alter-
ation to the program’’ and found that several of Klene’s requests for
additional accommodations would lower the standards of the program.
The circuit court cited to Ewing for the rule that courts ‘‘should show great
respect for the faculty’s professional judgment’’ (Klene v. Trustees of Indiana
University, 2011, p. 920).

SEVEN RULES TO LIVE BY

Taken in their totality, the preceding cases provide guidance for the direction
courts will take in cases brought against schools. Based on the statutes and
case law discussed in this article, there are seven basic rules of law that
would apply to social work programs in institutions of higher education:

1. Higher education programs must be accessible and may not discriminate

against students with disabilities.
290 S. L. Neely-Barnes et al.

2. Courts show great deference to faculty judgment.

3. The student with the disability must be an otherwise qualified individual.
4. The student has the burden of documentation of the disability but the
institution’s documentation process must not be unduly burdensome.
5. Programs must show they have attempted to make reasonable accommo-
dations but are not required to make substantial modifications.
6. Programs must have grievance and appeals procedures in the event a
student is denied accommodations or access to the program.
7. Programs may not retaliate when a student files a claim.

This is not to suggest that this is an exhaustive set of rules. Rather, these
are the rules that are most relevant to social work educators. Table 3 outlines
each rule and its legal sources.

LESSONS FOR SCHOOLS OF SOCIAL WORK

Although the court decisions provide us guidance on what the minimal level
of service to students will need to be, the minimums can certainly be
exceeded. There is little precluding a school from going above and beyond

TABLE 3 Rules of Law Concerning Students with Disabilities in Higher Education

Rule of common law Source(s) of the rule

1. Higher education programs must be . Section 504

accessible and may not discriminate
against students with disabilities.
2. Courts should show great deference to
faculty judgment.
3. The student with a disability must be an
otherwise qualified individual.
4. The student has the burden of
documentation of the disability but the
university’s process of documentation
must not be unduly burdensome.
5. Programs must show that they have
attempted to make reasonable
accommodations, but they are not
required to make substantial
modifications to the program.
6. Programs must have a grievance and
appeals procedure in the event a student .
is denied accommodations or access to
the program.
7. Programs may not retaliate when a
student files a discrimination claim.
. The ADA
. Regents of the University of Michigan v.
Ewing (1985)
. Southeastern Community College v. Davis
(1979)
. Kaltenberger v. Ohio College of Podiatric
Medicine (1998)
. Guckenberger v. Boston University (1997)
. Southeastern Community College v. Davis
(1979)
. Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine
(1991)
. Amir v. St. Louis University (1999)
. Zukle v. Regents of the University of
California (1999)
. Harnett v. Fielding Graduate Institute (2006)
. Section 504 Regulations
Guckenberger v. Boston University (1997)
. Amir v. St. Louis University (1999)
 Accommodations in Social Work Education 291

what is required by the law. Social work’s value of social justice requires us to
provide an accessible environment for all students, regardless of disability
and the opportunity to succeed. Where, however, do schools cross the line
from seeking social justice and access to failing to ensure a competent social
work workforce? Some answers might come in the court’s clarification of
reasonable accommodations and in the court’s clarification of grievance
and appeals procedures.

Reasonable Accommodations
As discussed earlier, the law requires higher education institutions to make
reasonable accommodations, but not substantial modifications to their curricu-
lum or requirements. A program is not required to grant a requested accommo-
dation if the accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of the
curriculum or not require the student to demonstrate proficiency in one or more
core areas of competency. Klene v. Trustees of Indiana University (2011) pro-
vides an interpretation of where the line is drawn between reasonable accom-
modations and substantial modifications in a social work field setting. Indiana
University was not required to award Klene credit without her finishing the field
placement, nor were they required to allow Klene to complete the field place-
ment from home because these accommodations would substantially alter the
fundamental nature of the course. The court found that the accommodations
that were provided to Klene (e.g., voice recognition software, multiple attempts
to complete the placement) were more than adequate to demonstrate that
Klene was not an otherwise qualified individual. Social work programs must
also follow the law as defined in Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine
(1991), which requires the program to give consideration to various methods of
accommodation and whether they can be implemented. If a reasonable accom-
modation cannot be found without lowering the academic standards of the pro-
gram, the program is not required to implement it.

Grievance, Appeals, and Retaliation

Social work programs must have grievance or appeals procedures in place if
a student is denied admission, retention, or accommodations, and these pro-
cedures must be applied without retaliation. Case law suggests that programs
benefit from clearly written curriculum, policies, and procedures. In situa-
tions in which the courts found in favor of the plaintiff (student with a dis-
ability) and not the university, the court typically found a lack of clarity in
curriculum, policies, or procedures. For example, in Guckenberger v. Boston
University (1997), the court found that the University faculty had not used a
deliberative procedure to determine whether dropping the foreign language
requirement for students with disabilities fundamentally altered the nature of
the liberal arts curriculum. The court in that case also found that there was
292 S. L. Neely-Barnes et al.

not a clear grievance procedure in place when students were denied accom-
modations. In Amir v. St. Louis University (1999), the court found that a
change in policy or procedure could be considered retaliation if it was made
while a particular student was in grievance.
Review of case law also indicates that degree programs benefit from
documentation that their policies and procedures have been followed. In
Klene v. Trustees of Indiana University (2010, 2011), Indiana University ben-
efited from documentation of the attempts it had made to accommodate
Klene and the documentation of the failed placements. Strong documenta-
tion resulted in the District Court calling the effort by Indiana University to
accommodate Klene exemplary.

ANALYSIS OF MEGAN’S CASE

Megan’s case can be used to illustrate the seven rules to live by described
earlier. In this case, Megan was accepted into a program that has a history
of working with persons with disabilities in a positive manner. Despite this
program’s positive history with persons with disabilities, it would be advis-
able for the school to have an affirmative statement of its willingness to work
with students with disabilities and to make accommodations, to better com-
ply with the first rule. The case suggests that the program has a good process
in place for documentation of accommodations and that the faculty are
appropriately using this system and making the accommodations. It is not
clear what the program’s procedures would be if Megan is, in fact, deter-
mined not to be appropriate for the program. Under the sixth rule, it would
be advisable for any program to have clear guidance available to students
regarding the process to appeal a decision not in the student’s favor.
Additionally, although at this point Megan is still in the program, it will be
important that all involved faculty ensure that there is not actual or perceived
retaliation, to avoid liability under the seventh rule.
The rules move beyond procedure to substance in rules two, three, and
five. Rule three makes it clear that Megan must be otherwise qualified and
competent to provide social work services if she is terminated from the pro-
gram and wishes to bring a successful discrimination suit against it. Although
the courts do not require schools to change the rules of competence for per-
sons with disabilities, the concern is that even with the accommodations like
those provided by the school in this case, the student is not able to provide
competent interaction with clients. If Megan is not able to show competence,
even with accommodations, she is not otherwise qualified. The school does
not have to change its requirements for competence to allow Megan to avoid
positively engaging with clients. To do so would be unnecessary under the
fifth rule because it would require the school to make a substantial modifi-
cation to the program that would frustrate its purpose.
 Accommodations in Social Work Education 293

In addition, it is likely that the faculty involved will have to be the ones to
make the decision of whether or not to terminate a student like Megan. This is a
judgment call that is often a difficult and painful decision for the faculty mem-
bers. The faculty are in a position to really understand what is needed for social
work competence and courts will ordinarily defer to their judgment, but in
accordance with the second rule, the courts will show great deference to this
decision. If the faculty of the program in Megan’s case determine that Megan,
even with accommodations, is unable to engage with clients, provide empa-
thetic response to clients, and otherwise provide competent social work ser-
vices, the faculty’s decision is likely to be supported in the court system
because these are generally accepted norms of competence in social work.
This is merely one case example, but the rules we have identified in the article
can be applied, much like we have done in Megan’s case, to a broad range of
situations to determine whether or not a school is in compliance with the law.

CONCLUSIONS

An understanding of the current state of the law can help to free social work
educators from undue concern about litigation. In those rare occasions
where accommodations would change the requirements of the profession,
the ADA and Section 504 should not bar the educator from acting as the
‘‘gatekeepers’’ of the profession (GlenMaye & Bolin, 2007; Karger & Rose,
2010; Sowbel, 2012). Although the ADA and Section 504 should keep the
door to social work education wide open, it should not be used as a shield
to protect those with disabilities from the ability to fail in the same manner as
their colleagues when they have not met the professional criteria for com-
petent social work practice. An understanding of what the law is and is
not can assist the educator in that endeavor.
Case law suggests that schools can take some important steps to mini-
mize their risk of litigation (or at least provide protection should litigation
be brought). Schools should have very clear policies regarding disability
accommodations. These should include both the school’s willingness to make
reasonable accommodations and the process by which a student should
document the disability. The grievance process should also be very plainly
spelled out. It is important that schools follow this process and clearly docu-
ment the reasons for any deviations. University legal counsel is usually
involved in designing these types of procedures and many universities have
these procedures proscribed at a university-wide level. Additionally, schools
should ensure that faculty and staff understand the definition of retaliation
and understand the seriousness of any retaliation should a student file a claim.
In addition to ensuring that schools understand their duties to accom-
modate students, schools should also examine their roles as gatekeepers. It
is important to keep in mind that although social work programs are better
294 S. L. Neely-Barnes et al.

off avoiding litigation whenever possible, fear of litigation must be balanced

with the duty to ensure that students who graduate are able to adequately
serve clients. The vast majority of students with disabilities can be accommo-
dated easily, and others with reasonable effort. If one additional accommo-
dation can be provided, one additional attempt at passing a requirement
granted, or one additional field placement allowed, it could save the univer-
sity from defending a lawsuit. More important, it is the ethical thing to do in
light of social work values. Educators will need to continue to follow the
social work values of inclusion and work to provide accommodations when-
ever necessary. The law provides the minimum required, but does not limit
schools to that minimum.
However, the educator also has the duty to ensure that those they gradu-
ate can meet the minimum competencies as put forth by the Council on Social
Work Education (2008). The courts have shown that they will defer to faculty
judgment about whether a student is competent to enter a profession (Regents
of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 1985). If a faculty member has a clear
and well-documented rationale as to why a student cannot meet the minimal
requirements of the social work profession even with reasonable accommo-
dations offered, the body of common law overwhelming suggests that the
courts will defer to the professional judgment. The Council on Social Work
Education (2008) has provided schools with educational policies and accred-
itation standards (EPAS), which provide explicit competencies that social
work students must be able to demonstrate prior to graduation. If a student
cannot demonstrate EPAS competency even with accommodations, case
law suggests they might not be an otherwise qualified individual. In the case
of Megan, she appears to be struggling with demonstrating professional con-
duct (Educational Policy 2.1.1), critical thinking (Educational Policy 2.1.3),
and engagement and assessment of clients (Educational Policy 2.1.10a-b). If
Megan cannot adequately demonstrate the practice behaviors of a pro-
fessional social worker, the faculty have strong reasons to dismiss her.
When examining Megan’s case, it is clear that these situations are never
easy. In these types of situations, of course, the institutional legal supports
should be consulted. However, a basic understanding of the rules of law that
we have outlined in this article will help schools operate not from fear of liti-
gation, but rather with a mind toward balancing the competing demands of
our values of inclusion and working to ensure that graduates of social work
programs can competently meet client needs.

REFERENCES

Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985).

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. x 12101 et seq. (West 1993).
Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–325 (2009).
 Accommodations in Social Work Education 295

Amir v. St. Louis University, 184 F.3d 1017 (1999).

Carten v. Kent State University, 78 Fed. Appx. 499 (2003).
Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation
standards. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=13780
Doe v. Oklahoma City University School of Law, 406 Fed. Appx. 248 (2010).
Dunn, P. A., Hanes, R., Hardie, S., & MacDonald, J. (2006). Creating disability
inclusion within Canadian schools of social work. Journal of Social Work in
Disability & Rehabilitation, 5, 1–19.
Gent v. Radford University, 976 F. Supp. 391 (W. D. Virginia 1997).
GlenMaye, L. F., & Bolin, B. (2007). Students with psychiatric disabilities: An explora-
tory study of program practices. Journal of Social Work Education, 43, 117–131.
Green, R. A. (2009). Assistive technology and academic libraries: Legal issues and
problem resolution. Journal of Access Services, 6, 36–47.
Guckenberger v. Boston University, 974 F. Supp. 106 (D. Massachusetts, 1997).
Gupta, J., Gelpi, T., & Sain, S. (2005). Reasonable accommodations and essential job
functions in academic and practice settings. Occupational Therapy Practice,
10(15), CE 1–8.
Harnett v. Fielding Graduate Institute, 198 Fed. Appx. 89 (2006).
Hawke, C. S. (2004). Accommodating students with disabilities. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 125, 17–27.
Kaltenberger v. Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine, 162 F.3d 432 (1998).
Karger, H., & Rose, S. R. (2010). Revisiting the Americans with Disabilities Act after
two decades. Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation, 9, 73–86.
Klene v. Trustees of Indiana University, Slip Copy (S.D. Indiana, 2010).
Klene v. Trustees of Indiana University, 413 Fed. Appx. 919 (2011).
Konur, O. (2002). Access to nursing education by disabled students: Rights and
duties of nursing programs. Nurse Education Today, 22, 364–374.
Mershon v. St. Louis University, 442 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2006).
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Number and percentage distribution
of students enrolled in post-secondary institutions, by level, disability status, and
selected student characteristics: 2003–04 and 2007–08. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_231.asp
Noonan-Day, H. L., & Jennings, M. M. (2007). Disruptive students: A liability, policy,
and ethical overview. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 24, 291–324.
O’Brien, G., & Ellegood, C. (2005). The Americans with Disabilities Act: A decision
tree for social services administrators. Social Work, 50, 271–279.
Orlin, M. (1995). The Americans with Disabilities Act: Implications for social services.
Social Work, 40, 233–239.
Pardeck, J. T. (1997). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Implications for
human services agencies. The Clinical Supervisor, 15, 147–161.
Pardo, P., & Tomlinson, D. (n.d.). Implementing academic accommodations in
field=practicum settings. Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary, Disability
Resource Centre. Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/drc/node/97
Raue, K., & Lewis, L. (2011). Students with disabilities at degree-granting post-
secondary institutions (NCES 2011–018). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
296 S. L. Neely-Barnes et al.

Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U. S. 214 (1985).

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. x 701 et seq.
Shackelford, A. L. (2009). Documenting the needs of student veterans with
disabilities: Intersection roadblocks, solutions, and legal realities. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22, 36–42.
Shaw, S. F., Keenan, W. R., Madaus, J. W., & Banerjee, M. (2010). Disability docu-
mentation, the Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act, and the summary
of performance: How are they linked? Journal of Postsecondary Education
and Disability, 22, 142–150.
Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979).
Sowbel, L. (2012). Gatekeeping: Why shouldn’t we be ambivalent? Journal of Social
Work Education, 48(1), 27–44.
Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 543 U.S. 184 (2002).
Watkinson, A. M., & Chalmers, D. (2008). Disability, professional unsuitability and
the profession of social work: A case study. Social Work Education, 27(5),
504–518.
Wong v. Regents of the University of California, 192 F. 3d 807 (1999).
Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine, 932 F. 2d 19 (1991).
Zukle v. Regents of the University of California, 166 F. 3d 1041 (1999).
Copyright of Journal of Social Work in Disability & Rehabilitation is the property of Taylor
& Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.