1. The Americans with Disability Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. §794 require an entity to seek to reasonably accommodate an "other qualified" individual with a disability who desires to participate in the services or programs offered by that entity. In order to determine whether a student is "otherwise qualified", a university must conduct an "individualized assessment" of the disabled student. An "individualized assessment" is an "interactive process" in which the student and university must engage in efforts to craft an accommodation that would permit the student to remain at the university. "In general" an individual must first notify an entity of his or her disability, and indicate a desire to remain, before that entity's obligation to engage in an interactive process is triggered. Most circuits, however, have recognized exceptions to this "general rule", especially when the disability is one that is known to the entity, and particularly where the disability is one that obviously impairs an individual's mental or cognitive abilities. Other circuits, including the Sixth Circuit, have taken the stance that an entity cannot be held liable for failing to meet its obligations under the ADA and Section 504, if the disabled individual did not first propose a specific reasonable accommodation, prior to separation from his or her desired position(s). The question presented is:

Whether the interactive process is triggered when a University knows or should know of a student's disability, and of that student's desire to remain at the University despite that disability?

2. Once enrolled, a student, even one with a disability, has a property and liberty interest in continued education. A State cannot deprive a person of a property or liberty interest without sufficient due process protections. A State university must provide a student with notice and a hearing, at a minimum, prior to stripping that student of his or her right to remain enrolled in that university. Due process protections must be tailored to the capacities of the individuals subject to dismissal, and more formal protections must be afforded to students facing long term suspension or expulsion from a university. The question presented is:

Whether a university is permitted to dismiss a student because of his disability, without providing that student prior due process protections, including notice and a hearing?

Whether the interactive process is triggered when a University knows or should know of a student's disability, and of that student's desire to remain at the University despite that disability?