LaMarca v. Capella - Judge's decision

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Shawn Ambrose, Dec 14, 2007.

Loading...
  1. Shawn Ambrose

    Shawn Ambrose New Member

    On December 13, United States Magistrate Judge Marc Goldman issued his ruling for dismissing LaMarca's lawsuit. Since the file is very large, I was unable to post it here.

    In general - the court ruled:

    1. LaMarca is not disabled under the ADA. This is due to the fact while there were differences between LaMarca's IQ scores and his working memory and processing scores, LaMarca's working memory score is in the 55th percentile and his processing score is in the 66th percentile. LaMarca's IQ score is in the 96th percentile.

    2. Even if LaMarca was disabled under the ADA, Capella granted reasonable accommodations. One paragraph is telling in the decision:

    "Not only were the accommodations Defendant (Capella) provided during the spring quarter reasonable, Defendant also eventually offered Plaintiff (LaMarca) the option to complete his courses through directed study, which would involve one-on-one instruction with the instructors. A directed study program would have addressed every issue Plaintiff raised, both with the WebCT deficiencies of which Plaintiff complained and the accommodations he believed were insufficient. The fact that the offer was made in the context of a dispute with the Plaintiff over his postings is irrelevant. Plaintiff declined the offer. Plaintiff's refusal to accept an accommodation that would have addressed all of his needs precludes his claims" (Case 8:05-cv-00642-MLG, p. 39).

    3. Capella did not engage in retaliation by locking out LaMarca from Capella's courserooms due to LaMarca's abusive behavior:

    "Plaintiff's attempts to characterize his posts as simple criticism's of WebCT are not persuasive. Plaintiff's comments were abusive, harassing, and inappropriate for any public environment, let alone the functional equivalent of a classroom...Plaintiff's conduct was no different than a student on a bricks-and-mortar classroom setting disrupting a class with vocal and unrelenting criticisms and personal attacks on the school's faculty and staff, based on a dispute over unrelated administrative issues (p, 45).

    4. Finally, although Capella's counterclaim was not addressed in this decision (LaMarca has asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to block Capella's counterclaim from being heard by the lower court), a footnote by the judge is telling:

    "Though Plaintiff clearly believes that the First Amendment protects his right to attack and belittle whomever drifts across his radar, the First Amendment protections are not so broad, particularly where, as here, there is no government action to which the First Amendment even applies...(Footnote 22).

    The ruling was obtained from PACER as a public record.

    Shawn
     
  2. MichaelR

    MichaelR Member

    hehe sounds like he got what he deserved.
     
  3. sulla

    sulla New Member

    No? The surprise of the century!
     
  4. PaulC

    PaulC Member

    I welcome the possibility that a full measure of justice may be the final outcome, when all is said and done.
     

Share This Page