Southeastern Community College v. Davis

Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court Case from 1979. Its plaintiff was a hearing-impaired student who, after being denied access to the school's nursing department, filed a lawsuit against claiming injustice to the Fourteenth amendment and to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.[1]

Southeastern Community College v. Davis
Argued April 23, 1979
Decided June 11, 1979
Full case nameSoutheastern Community College v. Frances B. Davis
Citations442 U.S. 397 (more)
99 S. Ct. 2361; 60 L. Ed. 2d 980
Case history
Prior424 F. Supp. 1341 (E.D.N.C. 1976); reversed, 574 F.2d 1158 (4th Cir. 1978)
Holding
Nothing in the language or history of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 limits the freedom of an educational institution to require reasonable physical qualifications for admission to a clinical training program.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinion
MajorityPowell, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

Background

Frances Davis was a student at Southeastern Community College and applied for the nursing program. Davis also had a hearing impairment, thus, her hearing was very poor and she relied mostly on lip-reading, even with a hearing aid. When she was interviewed, the problem was quickly noticed and she was told to consult an audiologist. Davis was diagnosed with a “bilateral, sensori-neural hearing loss,” and even with an improvement with a hearing aid she would only be able to dictate speech when someone spoke directly to her.[2]

The Executive Director of the State Board of Nursing reviewed her application and decided that it would not be safe for her to be a student in the program or to be a nurse. It was also decided that the accommodations that would have to be made for Davis would stop her from fully benefiting from the program. Davis asked the board to review the application once again, but was denied.

After the second attempt, Davis filed a lawsuit claiming the school was denying her of the Fourteenth amendment and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.[1]

Decision

The District Court decided that because Davis was not able to work adequately as a nurse, then she was not protected under Section 504, which states that a person must be able to perform all duties of a job, despite their disability.[3]

According to The Law and Higher Education, the court stated that “In many situations such as an operation room intensive care unit, or post-natal care unit, all doctors and nurses wear surgical masks which would make lip-reading impossible. Additionally, in many situations, a Registered Nurse would be required to instantly follow a physician’s instructions concerning procurement of various types of instruments and drugs where the physician would be unable to get the nurse’s attention by other than vocal means.” [2]

The decision was overturned by the Fourth Court, saying that the first court did not understand Section 504.[4] After reviewing the case the Supreme Court decided that the ability to hear was crucial in a nurse's daily work, and the accommodations that the program would have to provide was far more than what Section 504 outlines.

After the case

Southeastern Community College vs Davis was a landmark case because it helped define the outlines of Section 504 regarding reasonable accommodations and what accommodations would drastically impact a program.[5] It was the first case that brought attention to Section 504 and now any program does not have to make changes that would affect the core of the program or that would have an unnecessary financial burden.[6]

gollark: It isn't more specific. It says the same thing.
gollark: > - it has been randomly generated by an apioformWe use deterministic apioforms actually.> - the tests are correct (*)I checked them against themselves, so they must be.> - there is one or more allowed languagesThis is functionally identical to "- you will be allowed to use more than zero languages".
gollark: Anyway, what I *can* tell you now:- the challenge has a difficulty- I have written tests for it- you will be allowed to use more than zero languages- input and output will be in a format- the challenge is considered computable- there is no mandatory use of HTTP
gollark: 18:00 UTC.
gollark: What accursedological language is that? It looks like assembly, but not really.

References
  1. Zirkel, Perry (1988). A Digest of Supreme Court Decisions affecting Education. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. pp. 120–121.
  2. Olivas, Michael (2006). The Law and Higher Education: Cases and Materials on Colleges in Court. Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press. pp. 969–973.
  3. Davis v. Southeastern Community College, 424 F. Supp. 1341 (E.D.N.C. 1976).
  4. Davis v. Southeastern Community College, 574 F.2d 1158 (4th Cir. 1978).
  5. "Southeastern Community College v. Davis". Law and higher education. Retrieved 2017-04-30.
  6. Reynolds, Cecil R.; Fletcher-Janzen, Elaine (2007-01-02). Encyclopedia of Special Education: A Reference for the Education of Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Disabilities and Other Exceptional Individuals. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780471677987.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.