Erik Yarmey v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Appeal from U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa. Judge R.…

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 24-3231
ERIK YARMEY,
Appellant
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
_____________________________
Appeal from U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa.
Judge R. Barclay Surrick, No. 2:20-cv-05535
Before: MATEY, CHUNG, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges
Submitted Jan. 13, 2026; Filed Jul. 29, 2026 _____________________________
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION*
MATEY, Circuit Judge. The University of Pennsylvania’s Post-Baccalaureate Pre-
Health Studies Program allows students with an undergraduate degree to complete the
courses needed to apply for medical school. Erik Yarmey enrolled in the Program in the
fall of 2017, but problems began just a few weeks into the semester. Yarmey battled a series
of health issues that impacted his performance and forced him to withdraw from classes.
He repeatedly raised these concerns with faculty and administrators, who mainly responded
with accommodations and counseling. But Yarmey’s conditions worsened and he accrued
“incomplete” markings for classes. The parties dispute whether Yarmey was formally dis-
missed from the Program,1 but agree that the “incomplete” classes were eventually
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not
binding precedent.
1 Penn notified Yarmey that he was on “mandatory leave” and had to “complete all
outstanding course work” or his “incomplete” marks would be converted to failing grades.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
converted to failures. Faced with these setbacks, Yarmey was noncommittal about his fu-
ture in the Program. Then, in 2020, Yarmey sued Penn for violation of Title III of the Amer-
icans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), as well as
breach of contract. He sought an injunction reversing his dismissal from the Program and
damages. On appeal, Yarmey argues the District Court improperly granted summary judg-
ment in favor of the University,2 but we see no error.3
Yarmey cannot state a claim under either Title III of the ADA or Section 504 of the
RA.4 “The RA assures ‘meaningful access’ to federally funded programs, on the one hand,
and the ADA provides for ‘full and equal enjoyment’ of public accommodations, on the
other, to people with disabilities.” Berardelli v. Allied Servs. Inst. of Rehab. Med., 900 F.3d
104, 110 (3d Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). “The statutes’ respective causation elements
differ. . . . The RA allows a plaintiff to recover if he or she were deprived of an opportunity
to participate in a program solely on the basis of disability, while the ADA covers discrim-
ination on the basis of disability, even if there is another cause as well.” CG v. Pa. Dep’t of
Educ., 734 F.3d 229, 235–36 (3d Cir. 2013). The “substantive standards for determining
2 Yarmey does not appeal the District Court’s breach-of-contract ruling.
3 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and we have jurisdic-
tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo. Jorjani v. New Jersey Inst. of Tech., 151 F.4th 135, 140 n.5 (3d Cir. 2025).
4 And he lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief as he did not show a definite
intent to return to his studies, nor was he deterred from participating in the program, making
his alleged harms insufficiently concrete. See Camarillo v. Carrols Corp., 518 F.3d 153,
158 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam); Disabled Americans For Equal Access, Inc. v. Ferries Del
Caribe, Inc., 405 F.3d 60, 64 (1st Cir. 2005).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
liability under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA are the same.” Ridley Sch. Dist. v. M.R.,
680 F.3d 260, 282–83 (3d Cir. 2012).
Yarmey lists many challenges and hardships experienced during his time in the Pro-
gram but, as the District Court correctly concluded, none show he lacked “meaningful ac-
cess” to, nor denial of “full and equal enjoyment” of, the Program. To the contrary, Penn
faculty and staff made numerous accommodations to facilitate Yarmey’s participation in
the Program, including nonstandard grade notations, extensions of time on assignments,
extended test-taking time, counseling, and personalized guidance.5 Though some of
Yarmey’s individual requests for accommodations were denied, none of these denials de-
prived him of meaningful access to nor full and equal enjoyment of the Program. For those
reasons, we will AFFIRM the District Court’s judgment.
5 The District Court did not consider any conduct that occurred before November 5,
2018, as it reasoned that any such conduct was barred by a two-year statute of limitations.
Yarmey argues that no statute of limitations applies because of the “continuing violation”
doctrine. But even if we consider earlier acts, none are sufficient to sustain his claims.

-- 3 of 3 --