Judith K. Meisenhelder vs Florida Coastal School of Law, Inc.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-11224
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 3:09-cv-00074-HES-TEM
JUDITH K. MEISENHELDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FLORIDA COASTAL SCHOOL OF LAW, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 14, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case stems from appellant’s dismissal from appellee’s law school for

-- 1 of 3 --

failing to maintain the required minimum grade point average. In a two-count
complaint, appellant claimed that appellee discriminated against her in violation of
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act by failing to make reasonable accommodations for her
disabilities. As the district court noted in its February 18, 2010 order granting
appellee’s motion for summary judgment, appellant “had a long history of
migraine headaches and suffered from depression.” Order at 2. She also suffered
from “an eating disorder.” Id.
The district court’s summary judgment order lays out the salient facts
regarding appellant’s relationship with appellee’s law school over a period that
extended from the fall of 2004 to her dismissal from the school in the late summer
of 2008. The district court concluded, on the basis of those facts, that appellant
failed to establish that she suffered from a disability as defined by the ADA or
Section 504. The court went one step further and assuming that appellant had
established such disability, she failed to show that appellee failed reasonably to
accommodate it.
We discern no error in the district court’s disposition of appellant’s claims.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

We therefore affirm its judgment.1
AFFIRMED.
Appellant claims in her brief that the district court erred when it failed to address her 1
claim that appellee retaliated against her following her formal request for an accommodation of
her disabilities. Appellant’s complaint did not present the claim; thus, the court committed no
error in failing to consider it.
3

-- 3 of 3 --