[ back ]
DEVELOPMENTS IN VERMONT LAW
(by Kimberly B. Cheney - June 17, 2008)
What Accommodation Must a College Give to a Liar?
Rajan Bhatt was a fourth-year student at the University Of Vermont College Of Medicine. In order to graduate, he falsely claimed to have completed a rotation in pediatric surgery at another school. College rules provided a student could be dismissed if he/she demonstrated poor judgment, lack of personal integrity, or lack of personal accountability. After a hearing, the Dean found dismissal was warranted, but because Bhatt had graduated magna cum laude from his undergraduate school, it would allow him to graduate.
Soon after this decision, the Dean learned Bhatt lied about having obtained a magna cum laude degree from college. At the subsequent hearing to determine if he should be dismissed, Bhatt argued he suffered from TourettŐs Syndrome and an obsessive-behavior disorder which caused him to lie under stress. He said he was being treated for the condition and requested an accommodation on account of this Ňdisability.Ó The College noted he only claimed a disability after being caught lying and his unethical behavior warranted dismissal. It asserted no obligation to accommodate him.
Bhatt appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, claiming he was entitled to a reasonable accommodation for his disability under the Vermont Public Accommodations Act which requires schools to modify policies if necessary to accommodate individuals with disabilities. He claimed he was being treated for his disability, would not repeat his fraudulent behavior and should be allowed to graduate.
The Court was unsympathetic to BhattŐs accommodation claim. The Court upheld the CollegeŐs obligation to protect the public from unethical doctors Đ disabled or not -particularly where the misconduct was Ňegregious.Ó It explained that an accommodation is only required if the accommodation will enable the individual to meet all the schoolŐs academic and character requirements. BhattŐs behavior, even if it were a Ňdisability,Ó precluded him from satisfying the most basic ethical requirements of his profession. It was difficult to see how it could be accommodated as there was no guarantee that treatment would remedy this personality defect. Equally importantly, the individual must make a request for an accommodation before the misconduct. He cannot assert a disability as an excuse for it.
Undoubtedly, some disabilities are at the root of all misconduct. An abusive childhood may lead to crime, or a dyslexic lawyer may misread a document. But an explanation is not an excuse. The central requirement of disability law is that the individual must be able to meet all the requirements of the college; must notify the college of the disability and the problem it creates before there is misconduct; and then establish an accommodation that will allow success. Accommodate a liar? Not likely.
Bhatt v. University of Vermont 2008 VT 76.
-------
[ back ]
