Published on: July 24, 2025
A NABITA Tip of the Week by Tim Cason, M.Ed., and W. Scott Lewis, J.D.
Navigating the intersections of disability, student conduct, and due process is no easy task for higher education professionals. Balancing legal, ethical, and procedural responsibilities in disability-related behavioral incidents requires clarity, collaboration, and compassion.
How do you ensure students with disabilities aren’t unfairly sanctioned for behaviors related to their diagnoses while still holding them accountable? It’s a challenge that demands thoughtful action, aligning institutional values with federal requirements to support both fairness and accountability.
Legal Spotlight: Hight v. University of Chicago
What happens when institutions bypass established procedures or fail to adequately consider disability in conduct matters? The case of Hight v. University of Chicago is a powerful case study.
A medical student managing multiple disabilities, including sickle cell anemia, asthma, autoimmune conditions, chronic fatigue, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and a bipolar diagnosis, was dismissed following a behavioral incident he attributed to side effects from new medication. These disabilities were known to the University, and he had previously taken leave due to them.
In legal filings, he argued that the psychiatric medication impacted his judgment and behavior. While on the medication, he created a false email account impersonating a fellow student. He also sent fabricated evaluations praising his performance during class and clinical rotation, among other things.
The student’s claims included:
- Bypassing the Disciplinary Process: The university failed to follow its established disciplinary procedures, which typically involve providing due notice and holding a hearing.
- Failure to Engage in Interactive Process: The University did not explore alternative responses mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- Disparate Treatment: Hight alleged that he experienced disparate treatment, noting that non-disabled peers who committed similar or worse misconduct received lesser sanctions.
- Ignoring the Disability-Related Nature of Conduct: The University disregarded medical documentation explaining that his actions were directly related to side effects of his prescribed medication.
- Failure to Provide Reasonable Modifications: Despite having a history of accommodations and known disabilities, the University failed to engage in a reasoned exploration of options.
Outcome
Hight’s claims related to disability discrimination and breach of contract were allowed to proceed at least partially, underscoring the importance of adhering to due process and disability law:
- The court allowed Hight’s disability discrimination claim to proceed, finding his dismissal was partly based on his disabilities. The university’s decision to pursue summary dismissal for misconduct, instead of attempting to reasonably accommodate disability-related behavior, possibly violated Hight’s rights.
- The court dismissed his failure to accommodate claim due to lack of detail but allowed him to amend and refile to show how he requested accommodation related to the misconduct before his dismissal.
- The breach of contract claim was partially allowed. The court found Hight provided enough facts to suggest violations of disciplinary procedures and disability accommodation policies.
- The request for compensatory damages under Title III and Section 504 was denied. Title III does not allow compensatory damages, and there was insufficient evidence of intentional discrimination under Section 504.
Integrating Conduct and Accommodation Processes
Institutions must resist the impulse to treat disability and conduct concerns as separate tracks. When behavior may be related to a disability, a coordinated and deliberate approach is essential. This includes:
- Applying codes of conduct consistently and as written
- Avoiding shortcuts in investigations or hearings
- Integrating accommodations, when appropriate, into all stages of the conduct process
- Considering the why behind the behavior, not just the what
The interactive process, required by disability law, should be initiated early (before disciplinary action is finalized) and should involve appropriate staff from conduct, disability services, and other relevant stakeholders.
Developing a Supportive Sanctions Framework
When a student’s behavior stemming from a disability is determined to have violated a policy, after they have been afforded their due process rights, sanctions may be applied to ensure an effective response. Institutions should consider educational sanctions that maintain accountability while appropriately adjusting them to foster growth and reflection. Examples include:
- Reflective essays or restorative assignments
- Academic integrity or professionalism workshops
- Behavioral probation paired with support resources
- Supervised re-engagement in program or academic settings
The goal is not to excuse the behavior, but to respond in a manner that is educational, equitable, and aligned with best practices in disability support and student conduct.
The Role of Behavioral Intervention Teams (BITs)
BITs can play a crucial role in ensuring a comprehensive and coordinated response to student behavioral concerns related to disability. Acting as the central hub for referrals and analysis, BITs should:
- Prevent fragmented or siloed decision-making
- Facilitate timely engagement in the interactive process
- Triage referrals using objective rubrics and risk assessments
- Deploy interventions that balance safety, support, and accountability
A well-functioning BIT can integrate data from academics, clinical providers (with appropriate releases in place), student conduct, disability services, and other relevant sources. This holistic approach ensures that decisions are legally sound and student-centered.
Building Capacity Through Policy and Training
Proactive steps can help institutions prepare for complex cases before they arise. Key recommendations include:
- Developing clear policies that address the intersection of conduct and disability
- Training faculty and staff to recognize and refer disability-related concerns
- Reviewing all conduct referrals for disability implications before proceeding
- Keeping detailed documentation of decisions, support offered, and interactions with students
With the proper infrastructure, institutions can respond with decisiveness and empathy.
Addressing the Intersection of BIT, Conduct, and Disability Support
Disability does not exempt someone from accountability, but it should be thoughtfully considered within the disciplinary process. Students have a right to the protections afforded by disability law, due process, and fundamental fairness in all disciplinary proceedings. Institutions that act deliberately and compassionately are best positioned to fulfill their legal and ethical obligations.
Additional training on this topic is offered in NABITA’s workshop, Collaboration and Support: Addressing the Intersection of BIT, Conduct, and Disability Support.
More details and registration are available at nabita.org/training.