Johnson v. LA Dept of Education

Fifth Circuit

Johnson v. LA Dept of Education

275 F. App'x 392

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 2008

Docket07-30999

StatusUnpublished

This text of 275 F. App'x 392 (Johnson v. LA Dept of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. LA Dept of Education, 275 F. App'x 392 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

This case involves allegations that Theodore Johnson was denied financial aid on the basis of his disability in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(3), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. This matter reaches us on appeal following the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the State of Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Education, the President of the Louisiana State University System, and the University of New Orleans (collectively, “Defendants”). After reviewing the record, we AFFIRM for the reasons assigned by the district court:

1. Johnson has not shown that he was denied financial aid solely on the basis of his disability; that despite his disability, he was otherwise qualified to receive the denied financial aid; or that his disability was even a motivating factor. He also has not shown that he had imposed upon him, on the basis of his disability, academic standards that are any different than those imposed on all students in order to qualify for financial aid. Finally, his request that Defendants reinstate his financial aid despite his substandard academic performance is not a reasonable accommodation, especially given his concession that his failure to *394 make the required grades during the relevant period was not the result of his disability, but of his inability to catch up when he started classes a week late. Thus, his Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims lack merit. See Pinkerton v. United States Dep’t of Educ., 508 F.3d 207, 210, 212-14 (5th Cir.2007).

2. Johnson was not denied his right to appeal the financial aid decisions. Instead, his first appeal was approved, and when he failed to meet the academic standards required to continue his financial aid, he was given a written notice of his right to appeal that determination within a specified time period. He failed to do so. Thus, his procedural due process claims lack merit. See Able v. Bacarisse, 131 F.3d 1141, 1143 n. 1 (5th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

This case involves allegations that Theodore Johnson was denied financial aid on the basis of his disability in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(3), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. This matter reaches us on appeal following the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the State of Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Education, the President of the Louisiana State University System, and the University of New Orleans (collectively, “Defendants”). After reviewing the record, we AFFIRM for the reasons assigned by the district court:

1. Johnson has not shown that he was denied financial aid solely on the basis of his disability; that despite his disability, he was otherwise qualified to receive the denied financial aid; or that his disability was even a motivating factor. He also has not shown that he had imposed upon him, on the basis of his disability, academic standards that are any different than those imposed on all students in order to qualify for financial aid. Finally, his request that Defendants reinstate his financial aid despite his substandard academic performance is not a reasonable accommodation, especially given his concession that his failure to *394 make the required grades during the relevant period was not the result of his disability, but of his inability to catch up when he started classes a week late. Thus, his Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims lack merit. See Pinkerton v. United States Dep’t of Educ., 508 F.3d 207, 210, 212-14 (5th Cir.2007).

2. Johnson was not denied his right to appeal the financial aid decisions. Instead, his first appeal was approved, and when he failed to meet the academic standards required to continue his financial aid, he was given a written notice of his right to appeal that determination within a specified time period. He failed to do so. Thus, his procedural due process claims lack merit. See Able v. Bacarisse, 131 F.3d 1141, 1143 n. 1 (5th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 F. App'x 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-la-dept-of-education-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack