United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Robert Blakey United States District Judge
Ayesha Khan ("Plaintiff' or "Khan") is a
former medical student at Defendant Midwestern University
("Defendant" or the "University").
Plaintiff alleges that during the 2012-13 school year, she
became clinically depressed and developed a generalized
anxiety disorder due to a pregnancy and other extenuating
circumstances in her life. Plaintiff further alleges that she
requested reasonable accommodations in light of these
disabilities, but Defendant denied her requests. Plaintiffs
sole remaining claim pursuant to these allegations arises
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701
et seq. Defendant has moved for summary judgment,
 at 1, and for the reasons explained below,
Defendant's motion is granted.
student fads a course at the University, their academic
progress is reviewed by the University's Preclinical
Promotions Committee ("PCP").  at 3. As a
matter of University policy, each course failure results in
an accumulation of "failure-equivalents."
Id. If a student accumulates one failure-equivalent,
the PCP requires the student to repeat that course before
they can progress in their studies. Id. If a student
accumulates three failure-equivalents in a single academic
year or four failure-equivalents spanning more than one year,
the PCP generally dismisses the student. Id.
Plaintiff does not dispute this characterization of
University policy and practice. [59-1] at 4.
Plaintiffs Time At The University
fall of 2010, Plaintiff matriculated into the University and
enrolled in "Block I, " which contains sixteen
courses.  at 4. Plaintiff failed three of her initial
sixteen courses, giving her four failure-equivalents (due to
the variable credit values of the courses). Id.
Plaintiff additionally withdrew from five other courses, one
of which she was faihng at the time of her withdrawal.
Id. at 5.
March 11, 2011, Plaintiff explained to the University's
review board that she believed her academic difficulties were
caused by her husband's illness. Id. Though
Plaintiff had already accrued more than enough
failure-equivalents to justify her dismissal under University
policy by this time, she was only suspended and placed on
academic probation. Id.
fall of 2011, Plaintiff repeated the Block I courses she
either failed or did not complete. Id. The PCP
reviewed her work and allowed her to progress to "Block
II, " which contains twelve courses. Id. at
became pregnant in late January or early February of 2013,
during the pendency of Block II. [59-1] at 30. Plaintiff
alleges that her pregnancy, in conjunction with multiple
other factors, caused her depression and anxiety "in
late January/early February" of 2013. Id.
Plaintiff asked for, and was granted, a two-week medical
leave of absence from February 25, 2013 until March 11, 2013.
 at 7. Plaintiffs leave request was supported by a note
from Dr. Gerald Farby. Id.
claims that when she returned to the University, she
"asked for the following accommodations . . .
rescheduling of exams in Pharmacology, Pathology, and
Microbiology . . . [and assignment of a] Tutor for
pharmacology [sic]." [59-2] at 2. Plaintiffs
accommodation requests were supported by letters from Dr.
Farby (dated March 20, 2013) and Plaintiffs "counselor,
" Sufi Ifthekhar Ahmed (dated March 18, 2013). [57-1] at
61-62. Plaintiff claims that she hand-delivered these letters
to unnamed "school administrators" on March 21,
2013. [59-1] at 17.
parties agree that Plaintiffs Pathology and Microbiology
exams were rescheduled. [59-2] at 2. The parties further
agree that Plaintiff was assigned a Pharmacology tutor,
though Plaintiff claims the assigned tutor was unavailable to
meet with her. Id.
had particular issues in her Pharmacology course, taught by
Dr. Walter Prozialeck. Pharmacology spanned all three
quarters of Block II, and was worth ten credits.  at 7.
On March 25, 2013, Dr. Prozialeck sent an email to Ms. Khan
regarding her academic standing in the course. Id.
Plaintiff acknowledges that by this time, she had failed
seven out of nine exams and was failing the course. [59-1] at
17. Dr. Prozialeck requested that Ms. Khan speak to him about
her academic performance. Id.
March 28, 2013, Ms. Khan came to Dr. Prozialeck's office.
Id. The parties disagree regarding what was said
during that meeting. Defendant suggests that Dr. Prozialeck
spent time discussing Ms. Khan's overall course
performance and calculated target grades that she would need
to score on future exams in order to pass the course.  at
7. Defendant also claims that Dr. Prozialeck discussed
general study strategies with her, and reviewed past exams.
Id. Conversely, Plaintiff insists that the meeting
largely consisted of her being "criticized for being
pregnant. She was told ...