Banga v. Kanios

Background

Navjeet Singh Banga sued John F. Kennedy University (JFKU), National University, Chris Gus Kanios, Dean Barbieri, Eleanor Armstrong, and Debra Bean over his dismissal from JFKU’s law school. His surviving claims were disability discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), related claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and Unfair Competition Law, and breach of contract.

Banga enrolled as a part-time law student in fall 2015. He requested accommodations based on major depressive disorder and social anxiety disorder. JFKU approved several accommodations, including double time for examinations, permission to stand and walk during examinations, priority registration, multimedia textbooks, and testing in a private room in the Office of Accessibility Services. Banga failed the midterm and final examinations in both Contracts and Torts and finished his first year with a cumulative grade-point average of 63, below JFKU’s required minimum of 70. JFKU notified him that he was subject to academic disqualification, and its Academic Standards Committee denied his petition to continue on probation.

Banga said the private testing room he received was too noisy and that he needed a different room. He also filed a grade-change petition alleging discrimination in his Torts grade, but the Academic Standards Committee denied it. Banga filed the case pro se and was still proceeding without a lawyer at trial. A two-day bench trial took place on February 26 and 27, 2024.

Rule 52(c) Motion

After Banga presented his case, Defendants moved for judgment on partial findings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c). In a nonjury trial, that rule allows the court to enter judgment against a party after the party has been fully heard on an issue if the claim can succeed only through a favorable finding on that issue. The court explained that it could evaluate the evidence based on its own view rather than drawing inferences for Banga.

The court found that Banga had been fully heard on each claim. It allowed him to reopen his case to seek admission of 26 additional exhibits after Defendants filed their motion. The court therefore considered his evidence sufficient for purposes of deciding the Rule 52(c) motion, while declining to consider exhibits he first offered after trial had ended.

Rehabilitation Act Claim

To prevail under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Banga had to show that he was disabled, was otherwise qualified to remain a student, was dismissed because of his disability, and that JFKU received federal financial assistance. The court assumed, without deciding, that Banga established that he was disabled and that JFKU received federal funds.

The court ruled that Banga did not prove he was otherwise qualified to meet JFKU’s academic requirements even with reasonable accommodations. He presented little information about his performance in courses that were not graded through timed examinations. He also did not establish that his requested specific private room was a reasonable accommodation or that the room he received was actually unreasonably noisy. The court noted that Banga offered no witnesses or other evidence confirming the alleged noise and did not show that he had appealed the adequacy of his accommodations through JFKU’s stated process.

The court further found that Banga received a private testing room even though his accommodation letter did not mention one, and that his doctor’s note recommended extended test time but did not recommend a private room. The court held that Banga failed to provide sufficient evidence that he was otherwise qualified or that Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate him. Judgment for Defendants on the Rehabilitation Act claim was therefore appropriate under Rule 52(c).

ADA Claim

Title III of the ADA permits injunctive relief for qualifying disability discrimination but does not permit damages in private suits. Because Banga was no longer a student and Defendants represented that JFKU was no longer functioning as a law school, the court found that he could not face a future threat of inadequate testing accommodations there. Re-enrollment was unavailable because the institution no longer existed as a law school.

The court also concluded that a declaration concerning only past ADA violations would not provide a proper basis for federal jurisdiction. It held that Banga’s ADA claim was moot and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The court added that, even if the claim were not moot, Banga had not presented enough evidence to prove that Defendants denied him accommodations because of his disability or that he was otherwise qualified.

Unruh Act and Unfair Competition Law Claims

The parties agreed that Banga’s Unfair Competition Law and Unruh Act claims were derivative of his disability-discrimination claims. Because the court ruled against Banga on those claims, it also ruled against him on the derivative claims. The court found that Banga had not shown a failure to provide reasonable accommodation or that he was otherwise qualified to meet JFKU’s academic standards.

The court also noted that Banga did not present an independent Unfair Competition Law theory based on unfair or fraudulent business practices. It further found that he did not pursue a theory of intentional discrimination supporting an independent Unruh Act claim.

Breach of Contract Claim

Banga alleged that JFKU had promised to refund tuition for summer law classes. The court found that he did not provide persuasive evidence showing the amount charged, that JFKU failed to issue a refund, or that he suffered proven damages. The loan documents did not resolve whether the tuition had been refunded. Because Banga did not prove that any Defendant failed to perform a contractual obligation or that he was harmed, the court entered judgment for Defendants on the breach-of-contract claim.

Alternative Findings After the Full Trial

The court separately ruled that Defendants would prevail even if all evidence presented during the trial, including testimony from Defendants’ witnesses, were considered. That evidence included testimony that Banga did not pass a course evaluated through written assignments rather than timed examinations and that his accommodation requests and doctor’s note did not identify a need for a private testing room. The court concluded that this evidence further supported its determination that Banga was unable to meet JFKU’s academic standards even with the accommodations he received.

Disposition

The court dismissed Banga’s ADA claim as moot. It held that Defendants prevailed on each of Banga’s other causes of action and were entitled to judgment on those causes of action. The court also ruled that Banga was not entitled to damages.