Tyler Finnegan began a six-year Doctor of Pharmacy program at Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (MCPHS) in Fall 2016. MCPHS is a private university that receives federal funding. Upon acceptance, Finnegan received a copy of the MCPHS Student Handbook, which outlined policies and procedures, including course withdrawal, transfer credit, leave of absence, and academic dismissal.
In 2018, Finnegan learned that while he received transfer credit for prior elective courses, the grades were not calculated into his GPA. This led him to add additional electives and retake certain courses. In Spring 2019, Finnegan requested that his Organic Chemistry II grade from Salem State University (A-) replace the D grade he received at MCPHS. He claimed this was approved but not reflected in his grades.
Prior to Fall 2019, Finnegan was diagnosed with chronic migraines. He communicated this to MCPHS and submitted necessary paperwork. During the semester, due to his condition, he met with Dean Crosby, who advised him to take a leave of absence. Finnegan alleged that Dean Crosby said he would handle the logistics, but the leave was not properly reported, resulting in Fs (fails) instead of Ws (withdrawals) on his transcript.
Finnegan returned in Fall 2020, but again took a leave of absence midway through the semester due to his medical condition and personal issues. He provided medical documentation to Dean Crosby, who again allegedly said he would “take care” of the situation.
In Spring 2021, Finnegan returned, and his grades improved. However, his transcript still reflected Fs from Spring 2020. He completed Fall 2021, but on December 16, 2021, MCPHS dismissed him based on poor academic performance. Finnegan believed this was in error due to the incorrect Fs on his transcript.
At the time of dismissal, Finnegan had completed four years of the six-year program and incurred over $199,000 in student debt, plus approximately $43,000 paid out of pocket.
Finnegan filed a number of claims, including under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the American Disabilities Act (ADA) and breach of contract.
MCPHS moved to dismiss the claims.
Section 504 and ADA Claims
The Court analyzed these claims together due to their similar standards. For a section 504 claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege four elements: (1) disability, (2) seeking services from a federally funded entity, (3) being otherwise qualified to receive those services, and (4) denial of services solely due to disability.
For an ADA claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) disability within the ADA’s meaning, (2) qualification for program participation, (3) request for reasonable accommodation, and (4) denial of the request.
MCPHS argued that Finnegan was not a qualified individual and was not dismissed solely based on his disability, citing that Finnegan was dismissed three times based on academic performance, and therefore the fourth dismissal was unrelated to his disability. Finnegan argued that his prior dismissals did not bear on the fourth dismissal because MCPHS failed to provide him reasonable accommodations to help him succeed academically. The Court agreed and found that Finnegan had plausibly alleged he was otherwise qualified, as he had completed four years of the program, and his grades had improved after receiving treatment for his migraines.
MCPHS also contended that Finnegan never requested a reasonable accommodation because he did not follow the procedures, including making an official request. Finnegan argued that MCPHS was on notice of his disability because he informed MCPHS of his chronic migraines, submitted necessary paperwork, and provided medical documentation. The Court agreed that Finnegan had plausibly alleged that he would be granted additional time and that did not occur, and that Finnegan provided a medical letter stating the need for aid.
Based on these findings, the Court denied MCPHS’s motion to dismiss, allowing Finnegan’s Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims to proceed.
Breach of Contract
Finnegan also argued that MCPHS breached its contractual agreement based on the MCPHS Handbook. In particular, Finnegan argued, among other things, that MCPHS breached its contractual obligations when it failed to withdraw Finnegan from courses, resulting in Finnegan getting Fs instead of Ws; charged Finnegan for courses he withdrew from; failed to provide proper accommodations for exams; failed to refer Finnegan for further accommodations; and dismissed Finnegan due to a medical condition.
MCPHS argued that the Handbook is not a contract because the Handbook contained an express disclaimer that it is not intended and cannot be construed as a contract, and that the University could change, delete, or add to these guidelines unilaterally. The Court agreed, reasoning that courts have held that when there is an express disclaimer in a student handbook, and where a school retains unilateral rights to make changes without notice, any promises in the document are illusory.
Even assuming that the Handbook did form a contract, the Court concluded that there was no plausible basis for a breach of contract regarding Finnegan’s withdrawal, leave of absence, and transfer credit. In all instances, MCPHS followed its policies.
Finnegan v. Mass. Coll. of Pharm. (D.Mass. Nov. 13, 2024) 2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 205953.
Note: This case shows the interplay between accommodations and academic performance. Here, the student had requested accommodations and shown that his grades improved upon receiving treatment for his migraines. The student was able to show that the School’s later decision to dismiss the student for his poor grades could have been related to his underlying disability.