Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a licensed physician, Dr. Pushkin, filed suit under the Rehabilitation Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging discrimination based on his multiple sclerosis when he was denied admission to a psychiatric residency program. The defendants included The Regents of the University of Colorado and specific individuals within the program. The court examined whether Dr. Pushkin was an 'otherwise qualified handicapped individual' and scrutinized the subjective selection criteria used by the residency program, which lacked clear standards and was potentially influenced by perceptions of his handicap. Despite acknowledging the residency program's reputation and lack of bad faith, the court found that Dr. Pushkin was excluded solely due to his handicap, violating the Rehabilitation Act. The court awarded him costs and attorney fees, and issued an injunction mandating his admission to the next residency class. The decision emphasized the need for clear and unbiased criteria in residency selection processes, underscoring the legal protections against discrimination for handicapped individuals in federally funded programs.
Legal Issues Addressed
Criteria for 'Otherwise Qualified Handicapped Individual'subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated whether Dr. Pushkin was qualified for the program despite his handicap, noting the subjective nature of the selection criteria.
Reasoning: Dr. Pushkin must demonstrate that he qualifies as an 'otherwise qualified handicapped individual' for a psychiatric residency program. The Supreme Court's ruling in Southeastern Community College v. Davis established that the presence of a handicap does not automatically qualify an individual for participation in federally funded educational programs.
Discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that Dr. Pushkin was discriminated against solely based on his handicap, despite being qualified for the residency program.
Reasoning: Despite not acting in bad faith, the defendants' actions warrant scrutiny. The plaintiff has met criteria for relief by demonstrating: 1) defendants acted under state law; 2) he is a handicapped individual; 3) defendants receive federal funding; 4) he was excluded from the psychiatric residency program; 5) he is qualified despite his handicap; and 6) his exclusion was solely due to his handicap.
Legal Remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The claim was validly brought under § 1983, allowing for injunctive relief and attorney fees as Dr. Pushkin was recognized as the prevailing party.
Reasoning: The claim was properly brought under § 1983, eliminating concerns about an implied right of action under § 504.
Subjective Criteria in Residency Program Selectionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The selection process using subjective criteria was scrutinized, highlighting the lack of articulated standards and the influence of perceptions about the handicap.
Reasoning: Defendants exclusively utilize subjective criteria for evaluating candidates, which the Tenth Circuit has criticized as vague and impractical. While subjective criteria may be acceptable in certain contexts, such as in education, the current case lacks a clear basis for these assessments.