July 2015 - Parks & Recreation - 34

L AW R E V I E W

tance. " Accordingly, the issue before
the federal court was whether plaintiff
was " otherwise qualified " to participate in the recreational Program.
As cited by the federal district
court, a " qualified individual " under
the Rehabilitation Act is " one who
is able to meet all of a program's requirements in spite of her handicap,
with or without accommodation. " In
this particular instance, the federal
district court found plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to establish she
was an otherwise qualified individual with a disability. Specifically, the
court found evidence on the record
that plaintiff was able to successfully
participate in the Program, including
general compliance with the Code.

Code was " an integral aspect of the
Program " for qualified participants.
Instead, plaintiff disputed whether
she had indeed violated the Code
and/or whether UCSD had " accommodated her disability. "
In a January 2012 meeting, two of
the coaches informed the recreation
director that plaintiff had been a
Program participant for about three
years. The coaches further informed
the director that " plaintiff 's presence
in the Program had been tumultuous
and that she had violated the Code. "
The coaches explained " that they
gave second chances for many of
these rule violations because they felt
bad for her, but they expressed concern that the incidents were becom-

Even though plaintiff had never requested any type
of accommodation, the recreation director and
health director discussed accommodations, but
determined the dismissal was appropriate.
Having found sufficient facts to establish a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, the federal court noted that
the burden would then shift to UCSD
" to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. "
Further, if a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason was established, the
burden would shift back to plaintiff
to " prove that the proffered legitimate reason is a pretext for discrimination " on the basis of her disability.
Non-Discriminatory Reason?
As noted above, UCSD claimed " a
legitimate reason for terminating
plaintiff 's participation in the Program because she violated the Code. "
Plaintiff did not dispute that the
32 Parks & Recreation

ing more frequent and more severe. "
In addition, the coaches provided
several specific instances of misconduct, including a number of incidents
where plaintiff had been " disruptive
in practices, including blurting out
inappropriate comments, demanding
attention of the coaches and interrupting workouts. " In each instance,
the coaches stated they were " forced
to interrupt the workout " to deal with
plaintiff, and " often could not focus
on monitoring the safety of workouts
because of her actions. " As a result,
the director found plaintiff 's conduct
constituted a serious violation of the
Code because each interruption by
plaintiff " required coaches to provide
her with individualized attention at

| J U LY 2 0 1 5 | W W W. N R PA . O R G

the detriment of the safety and training of every other participant. "
The recreation director subsequently met with the UCSD director of
student health to discuss his concerns
about plaintiff 's bipolar disorder
and whether there were " any other
ways the Program might accommodate her presence. " In the absence
of any alternative accommodations,
the director had indicated " plaintiff 's
repeated violations of the Code warranted dismissal from the Program. "
Even though plaintiff had never requested any type of accommodation,
the recreation director and health
director discussed accommodations,
but determined that dismissal was
appropriate under the circumstances.
In the opinion of the UCSD health
director, the staff had bent over backward for three years to try to keep
plaintiff in the Program. Moreover,
in the opinion of the health director, the coaching staff was effectively required to fill the role of plaintiff 's full-time counselor, rather than
coach. Also, plaintiff 's conduct was
having a negative impact on other
participants. Specifically, the monopolization of the coaches by plaintiff
" came at the detriment of the other
paying participants who complained
about it. " The only possible accommodation that had been identified by
plaintiff 's medical expert was that she
" could have been referred to a mental
health counseling unit or program. "
In the opinion of the federal district
court, UCSD had " met its burden in
demonstrating that plaintiff 's numerous Code violations established a legitimate basis for plaintiff 's discharge
from the Program. "
In so doing, the court noted that
" this case does not deal with the accommodation of a disability in the
context of fundamental rights such

July 2015 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of July 2015 - Parks & Recreation