Whether an academic dean's decision to bar a student from taking makeup exams and kick him out of school due to a mistaken belief that the student was mentally ill violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ~ 1) 'S AN ACADEMIC DEAN’S DECISION TO BAR A STUDENT FROM TAKING TWO MAKEUP . EXAMS, AND KICK HIM OUT OF SCHOOL BECAUSE OF HER MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT THE : STUDENT WAS MENTALLY ILL A VIOLATION OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH : ; DISABILITIES ACT, AND IF SO, IS THE VIOLATION A MATTER OF STATEWIDE __ IMPORTANCE? 2) 1S A DEAN’S DECISION TO RENEGE ON HER AGREEMENT TO ALLOW ASTUDENTTO TAKE TWO OF HIS FINAL EXAMS AFTER MISTAKENLY PERCIEVING THE STUDENT AS . : . MENTALLY ILL WHEN HE ARRIVED TO TAKE THOSE EXAMS AT THE AGREED UPON DATE : AND TIME AN EXAMPLE OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION’S JUDGMENT OF THAT : STUDENT’S ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, OR AN EXAMPLE OF AN OVERLY HARSH AND DISCRIMINATORY PUNISHMENT THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF TITTLE III OF THE . AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND ITS SUBSET SECTION 8-107(4)(A) OF THE : NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW? 3) WAS RESPONDENTS’ DECISION TO BAR A STUDENT FROM TAKING EXAMS AFTER . MISTAKENLY PERCIEVING HIM AS MENTALLY ILL A DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY, . AND CAPRICIOUS, ABUSE OF AUTHORITY.-THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF TITLE III OF THE ; AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND ITS SUBSET SECTION 8-107(4)(A) OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW? : : 4) DID RESPONDENT BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL PROCEED IN EXCESS OF THEIR DISCRETION : : BY PERFORMING UNORTHODOXED ACTIONS THAT THE SCHOOL’S HANDBOOK DOES ; : NOT EXPLICITLY ALLOW SUCH AS, BLOCKING A STUDENT’S ACCESS TO THE WEB : ADVISOR PROGRAM, AND PLACING A “STUDENT EVALUATION” HOLD ON THE : STUDENT’S ACCOUNT AFTER HE INFORMED THEM THAT HE WAS ILL AND REQUESTED A MAKEUP EXAM, AND DO THESE ACTIONS VIOLATE TITLE I1l OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AND ITS SUBSET SECTION 8-107(4)(A) OF THE NEW YORK CITY : HUMAN RIGHTS LAW? 2 . ow : x :