Editing Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations (section)

=== HU-153: Discrepancies between the June 4, 2026 recorded accommodation meeting and Emilie Thompson's written follow-up ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Discrepancies Between Recorded Accommodation Meeting and the Written Follow-Up / Contested Points Memorialized as Confirmed
! Date added
| 2026-06-04
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Emilie Thompson (ADA and Title IX Coordinator) / Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP) / Dr. Rachel Powell
|}
'''Finding.''' Emilie Thompson, ADA and Title IX Coordinator, sent the reporting student a written follow-up to the June 4, 2026 meeting stating "we confirmed the following" and that she wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page. A comparison of that email against the meeting transcript shows that several points the email presents as confirmed were in fact actively disputed by the reporting student during the meeting, and that the written summary repeatedly softens or omits the more serious statements made to him while memorializing the institution's and the professor's positions as the agreed outcome. This entry also confirms the identity of the meeting participant previously referred to as Emily/Emilie in {{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}: she is Emilie Thompson. Notably, per {{HU|HU-142}}, Emilie Thompson is the ADA/Title IX Coordinator for ground students while Rachel Dalmont serves online students; the reporting student is an online student, so the ground-student coordinator handled and memorialized his accommodations, which the transcript explains as Dr. Rachel Powell asking Thompson's office to handle it for this term because of the timing, itself an inconsistency with the documented coordinator assignment. The specific discrepancies between the meeting and the email are itemized in the Evidence field.

'''Evidence.''' DISCREPANCY 1 (confirmed vs. disputed): Email: "we confirmed the following" / "make sure everyone is on the same page." Transcript: multiple points were openly contested by the reporting student, who repeatedly stated his understanding differed. DISCREPANCY 2 (debrief timing, direct contradiction): Email: "if there is need to debrief... you may need to extend a bit past the 8-hour mark." Transcript: the reporting student stated the debrief should be done during that clinical time, and of an after-clinical debrief said "this doesn't make any sense." DISCREPANCY 3 (magnitude minimized): Email: "your time could possibly extend a bit past the 8-hour mark" ("a bit," used twice). Transcript: the reporting student: "we're not talking about 15 minutes... we're talking about an hour, hour and a half past my end time... that's 10 hours. That's not eight. That is a significant difference." DISCREPANCY 4 (start time settled): Email: "You now have a start time." Transcript: the reporting student stated "my schedule has changed four times this week alone," with still no meeting point less than 24 hours before start. DISCREPANCY 5 (lunch): Email: "You are approved to take a lunch break." Transcript: lunch was uncertain; the professor reportedly said "you're not going to have a lunch, and you need to be flexible." DISCREPANCY 6 (omission of approved break / decide whether to continue): Transcript: Thompson stated "you may be in a situation where you'd have to take an approved break" and that he "also need[s] to make a determination about if you feel that you can move forward with the clinical." Email: softened to "it is not possible to guarantee that every need... will be able to be met, but we will continue to make a good-faith effort." DISCREPANCY 7 (medical basis dropped): Transcript: the eight-hour cap was a negotiated trade-off, no service dog plus medication timing, and routine extension is medically problematic. Email: states eight hours but frames extensions as acceptable without acknowledging the trade-off or medical necessity. DISCREPANCY 8 (soft vs. firm 4:30): Email: "Your clinical time should end before 4:30pm." Transcript: the reporting student treated 4:30 as a firm need tied to his GI medication and a September procedure, supported by a six-month provider letter. (Source Group: comparison of the June 4, 2026 recorded meeting transcript, the reporting student with Dr. Danielle Laban, AVP, and Emilie Thompson, ADA and Title IX Coordinator, and Emilie Thompson's written follow-up email dated June 4, 2026, both provided by the reporting student.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Email]: Based on our conversation today, we confirmed the following... your time could possibly extend a bit past the 8-hour mark... Abandoning a patient care activity to leave at a specific time... could constitute a risk to patient safety and a clinical failure. [Transcript, contested]: we're not talking about 15 minutes... we're talking about an hour, hour and a half past my end time... that's 10 hours. That's not eight.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794): an accommodation follow-up should accurately reflect what was discussed and agreed; memorializing contested points as confirmed, and softening or omitting statements such as a possible forced break or a course-failure warning, can misstate the interactive process and disadvantage the student in any later dispute. The accommodation letter ({{HU|HU-142}}) places responsibility on faculty and coordinators to implement approved accommodations consistently; a written record that recasts disputed items as agreed undermines that process. The coordinator-assignment inconsistency, a ground-student coordinator handling an online student, should be reconciled against the documented structure in {{HU|HU-142}}. No legal conclusion is asserted; these are documented discrepancies between two records of the same meeting. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-135}} (underlying eight-hour dispute), {{HU|HU-145}} (conditional framing and course-failure warning), {{HU|HU-146}} (approved break), {{HU|HU-147}} (patient-safety reframing), {{HU|HU-142}} (accommodation letter and coordinator structure).

'''Impact.''' Because the written follow-up presents contested items as confirmed and softens or omits the more serious statements, the possible forced break, the course-failure warning, the magnitude of the overage, and the medical basis for the eight-hour and 4:30 limits, the official record of the meeting does not match what the reporting student experienced and disputed. If this email becomes the institution's reference point, the reporting student may be held to terms he did not agree to, for example routine extension past eight hours for debrief, and the medical necessity of his limits may be understated. The discrepancy between the contemporaneous recording and the written summary is itself significant for any later review of how his accommodations were handled.

'''Notes.''' Confirms that the meeting participant referred to as Emily/Emilie in {{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}} is Emilie Thompson, ADA and Title IX Coordinator (emthompson@herzing.edu, [phone redacted], Calendly: calendly.com/emthompson-hu). Coordinator-assignment inconsistency: per {{HU|HU-142}}, Thompson serves ground students and Rachel Dalmont serves online students; the reporting student is online. The transcript records that Dr. Rachel Powell asked Thompson's office to handle it for this term because of the timing. The student retained both the recording/transcript and the email, which are the sources for this comparison. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-135}}, {{HU|HU-142}}, {{HU|HU-145}}, {{HU|HU-146}}, {{HU|HU-147}}, {{HU|HU-148}} (schedule changes), {{HU|HU-149}} (no meeting point). Relates to the June 4, 2026 meeting group ({{HU|HU-145}} through {{HU|HU-152}}). POSSIBLE follow-up: whether the reporting student responds to correct the record, and whether the institution amends the written summary.

<span id="HU-163a"></span>