Ickes v. University of California College of the Law

Background

Tenor D. Ickes sued the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, which the opinion calls UC Law. Ickes enrolled in fall 2022. He had disclosed in his application that he had childhood Tourette Syndrome but said that its symptoms had faded by adulthood. He did not disclose related conditions such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in that application.

Ickes did not request an accommodation before or during his first semester. After a close friend died in March 2023, he alleged that the loss and law-school stress caused a significant return of disability-related symptoms that impaired his ability to study and take exams. He did not request an accommodation during that semester. His grade-point average fell below UC Law’s 2.5 minimum, and the school initially disqualified him.

Ickes petitioned for readmission under Academic Regulation § 1502. His petition identified his friend’s death and his past alcohol-rehabilitation treatment but did not mention his disability or disability-related symptoms. He said he believed the regulation prevented him from using his disability as an extenuating circumstance because the condition would continue to exist. UC Law readmitted him but imposed additional academic requirements, including minimum grades in certain courses and enrollment in a required “Law and Process” course each year.

Ickes did not request an accommodation during the semesters after readmission. In spring 2025, he struggled with the workload in Evidence Law and Process, miscalendared the final-exam date, and arrived late. He received a C-, which did not satisfy the additional grade requirements. UC Law permanently disqualified him on May 20, 2025. He later alleged that UC Law retaliated against him by locking him out of his apartment building and contacting him directly about disputed loans after he sent a letter asserting that § 1502 discriminated against him.

Ickes asserted five causes of action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and related regulations. The court grouped his factual theories into claims that UC Law failed to accommodate his disabilities and failed to communicate effectively about accommodation and readmission policies. Before this ruling, the court had denied his requests for emergency and preliminary relief, finding, among other things, that he had not raised serious questions about the merits of his claims.

Motion and Legal Standard

UC Law moved to dismiss the entire first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and asked whether they made liability legally plausible rather than merely possible.

Failure-to-Accommodate Claims

The court analyzed Ickes’s accommodation claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. It identified the relevant elements as whether Ickes was disabled, otherwise qualified to remain a student with or without reasonable accommodation, dismissed solely because of his disability, and suing an entity covered by the applicable statute.

The court focused on whether Ickes adequately alleged that he was otherwise qualified and that his disqualification was solely because of his disability. It held that UC Law had no obligation to accommodate a current disability that Ickes had not made known and for which he had not requested an accommodation, unless the school otherwise knew that he needed one.

The court found that Ickes never requested an accommodation before his permanent disqualification. He did not do so when he enrolled, when his academic problems began, during readmission, or during the semesters after readmission. The court also held that his application did not put UC Law on notice of a current disability affecting his performance because it described childhood Tourette Syndrome and said the symptoms had faded by adulthood. The application also did not identify his other alleged conditions.

The court rejected Ickes’s argument that UC Law should have inferred his need for an accommodation from his academic difficulties or from his readmission petition. The petition did not mention Tourette Syndrome, described his addiction problem as past, attributed his academic struggle to his friend’s death, and stated that he was addressing the resulting trauma through therapy. The court concluded that these allegations did not show that UC Law knew he had a disability requiring accommodation.

Effective-Communication Claims

Ickes argued that UC Law failed to communicate effectively about two policies. First, he said the school’s communications led him to believe that accommodation requests could be made only at the beginning of a semester. Second, he argued that Academic Regulation § 1502 was confusing because he believed it prevented him from identifying his disability as an extenuating circumstance in his readmission petition.

The court held that the Rehabilitation Act regulation Ickes cited applied to people with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, while Ickes alleged cognitive impairments involving comprehension. The court also interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act effective-communication regulation as addressing communication barriers involving auxiliary aids and services, such as interpreters, notetakers, written materials, or other tools for sensory disabilities. Because Ickes did not allege that he needed an auxiliary aid or service to understand UC Law’s policies, the court held that the regulation did not apply to his claim.

The court added that Ickes would not prevail even under a broader interpretation of the effective-communication regulation. The school’s website said students “can” contact the Disability Resource Program before or at the beginning of the semester and that the intake process “should” be completed before the first day of class for arrangements requiring faculty notification. The court found that this language was permissive and advisory, not a rule barring requests made during a semester.

The court likewise found that § 1502 was not confusing on its face. In the court’s view, Ickes could have argued that his disability-related symptoms were temporary or would no longer affect his academic performance if he received accommodations, even though the underlying disability would continue. The court also viewed Ickes’s declaration that he and his family had discussed and agreed on how to address § 1502 as undermining his contention that his disability alone caused his interpretation of the regulation.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court declined to give Ickes permission to amend his complaint again. It relied on his previous amendment, his repeated changes in theory after the earlier emergency-relief ruling, and its conclusion that the proposed theories were not legally viable. The court also found that proposed allegations concerning federal web-accessibility guidance did not address the alleged problem, which concerned interpretation of information rather than its absence. Although Ickes had suggested retaliation allegations, he had never requested permission to assert a retaliation claim, and the court stated that the alleged causal connection was implausible in light of the timing and the school’s stated connection between the events and his prior disqualification.

The court granted UC Law’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, directed the Clerk to enter final judgment, and ordered the case closed. The order disposed of Docket No. 34.