Editing Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations (section)

=== HU-184: Herzing's Intensive Location Exception Request process treated a disability-related location accommodation as a discretionary, case-by-case request ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED as to the content of the email exchange and the form language quoted; POSSIBLE as to whether Nashville was in fact the contractually specified intensive location at enrollment, which is the reporting student's own assertion and has not been independently verified against an enrollment agreement in this entry
|-
! Issue type
| Accommodation Request Processed as Discretionary Exception; Disputed Form Language; Disputed Enrollment Location Term
! Date added
| 2026-07-26
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Ilma Stipanovic (Experiential Learning Manager, Intensives) / Intensives Online team / Emilie Thompson (ADA and Title IX Coordinator)
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student, pre-slotted into the Brookfield location based on his state of residence, emailed the Intensives team stating he needed the dates and times for both the Brookfield and Nashville sessions in order to coordinate care for his service dog, describing this as something he has done consistently throughout the program, including for Intensive I and a prior out-of-town Clinical I, and characterizing it as a disability accommodation that has been approved each semester rather than a new request. Ilma Stipanovic responded that the dates were the same for both locations, that a location change required completing the standard Location Exception Request Form, that such requests are reviewed case by case with no guarantee of approval, and that a student arriving at the wrong location would be turned away; she added that under the ADA a student can have a service dog with him as any member of the public could in a store or doctor's office, and that Herzing could not make exceptions for any one student in fairness to others. The reporting student replied that this was not a request but a legally required disability accommodation, that he understood ADA and Section 504 well from over a decade of relevant professional experience, and separately asserted that Herzing had promised Nashville as his intensive location at the time of his enrollment, characterizing the university's current attempt to place him in Brookfield instead as a misleading and deceptive trade practice and a likely breach of contract. After reviewing the Location Exception Request Form, the reporting student identified several form provisions he stated violate the ADA and Section 504 and constitute retaliation: that his request would only be reviewed after registration for assigned-location students is complete, that submission of the form does not guarantee approval, that he would still need to register for a session at his assigned location he did not intend to attend, that failure to secure a session may delay his progression, and that the form did not let him select his preferred Nashville date the way non-disabled students could select their preferred date. Ilma Stipanovic maintained that every student, disabled or not, must go through the same form and process, and that the process could not be varied for fairness reasons. The reporting student subsequently asked that further communication from Ilma Stipanovic be directed to his Herzing email rather than his personal email, stating the personal emails were frustrating him and he preferred to read them in a better headspace, and stated he would coordinate directly with disability services and requested time with Emilie Thompson, the ADA and Title IX Coordinator, to discuss both the accommodation process and his concerns about the form language.

'''Evidence.''' The reporting student, email, July 25, 2026, 6:11 PM: request for both locations' dates to coordinate service dog care, describing this as an approved, recurring disability accommodation. Ilma Stipanovic, emails, July 25, 2026, 6:25 PM, 6:39 PM, and 6:38 PM (Sunday July 26, 8:46 AM continuation): statements that the dates are the same for both locations, that the exception form is required of every student regardless of ADA status, that a service dog is separately permitted under the ADA the way it would be in any public place, and that the process could not be varied for fairness. The reporting student, email, July 25, 2026, 6:27 PM: statement that this is a disability accommodation matter, not a request. The reporting student, email, July 25, 2026, 6:52 PM: assertion that Nashville was the enrollment-promised location and that changing it now is a misleading and deceptive trade practice and a likely breach of contract. The reporting student, email, July 25, 2026, 7:20 PM, with an attached annotated copy of the Location Exception Request Form: identification of specific form language he states violates the ADA and Section 504 and constitutes retaliation. The reporting student, email, July 26, 2026, 9:15 AM: statement that he will coordinate with disability services, a request to schedule time with Emilie Thompson, and a request that Ilma Stipanovic use his Herzing email address going forward. Screenshot, July 25, 2026, 7:16 PM (Screenshot 2026-07-25 at 7.16.36 PM.png): the actual Location Exception Request Form (Microsoft Forms), question 13, titled "Acknowledgment and Agreement," showing the five bulleted statements the reporting student identifies as problematic and his verbatim typed response declining to agree to them. (Source Group: email thread, subject "Fall 2026, Brookfield, WI: Intensive II Registration," between the reporting student and Ilma Stipanovic, Experiential Learning Manager, Intensives, Herzing University Brookfield, with Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Dr. Danielle Laban, ADA, and Emilie Thompson copied, July 24 through 26, 2026; provided by the reporting student.)

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>This is a disability accomodations matter not a request and it is required by law unless you are going to allow me to have my service animal with me at the campus which is also required by law. [Form language the reporting student identifies as problematic:] My request will only be reviewed after registration for assigned-location students is complete. Submission of this form does not guarantee approval. I should still register for an available session at my assigned location. Failure to secure a session may delay my progression. [The reporting student's verbatim typed response in the form, July 25, 2026:] I do not agree or consent to this. By doing "My request will only be reviewed after registration for assigned-location students is complete" you are retaliating for me requesting disability accommodations. Putting me in a worse position than other students because I am requesting an accommodation.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12181 et seq., require that reasonable accommodations be provided rather than treated as a discretionary courtesy, and prohibit retaliation against a student for requesting an accommodation, 42 U.S.C. §12203. Whether requiring every student, disabled or not, to submit the same location exception form is itself a Section 504 or ADA violation depends on whether the process as applied denies or unreasonably delays a legally required accommodation; a facially neutral process applied without an individualized accommodation review can still violate these laws if it results in the disabled student being treated less favorably or being required to jump through hurdles that a documented, previously approved accommodation should not require. The reporting student's characterization of specific provisions as retaliatory is his own legal conclusion, offered here as his stated position rather than an adjudicated finding. Separately, if Herzing did in fact specify Nashville as the reporting student's intensive location as a term of his enrollment agreement, changing that assignment without his consent could implicate general contract and consumer protection principles; this has not been verified against the enrollment agreement itself in this entry and is flagged as an open item.

'''Impact.''' If the reporting student's account is accurate, treating a previously approved, recurring disability accommodation as a discretionary, case-by-case exception request, subject to a process that does not guarantee approval and that requires registering for a session he does not intend to attend, risks both delay in securing an appropriate intensive location and the chilling effect of a process the reporting student already experiences as retaliatory. The unresolved dispute over which location was contractually promised at enrollment adds a separate risk of a last-minute location conflict close to the intensive dates.

'''Notes.''' It is recommended that the reporting student request, in writing from Emilie Thompson or the ADA office, a formal determination of whether his location preference for intensives is a standing approved accommodation as he describes it, rather than a case-by-case exception request, and that he request a copy of his original enrollment agreement or admissions materials to verify or refute his assertion that Nashville was the specified intensive location at enrollment. The full text of the Location Exception Request Form and the reporting student's verbatim typed response (Screenshot 2026-07-25 at 7.16.36 PM.png) have now been provided and should be preserved as exhibits; the form's own text confirms the five bulleted statements quoted above are the institution's stated terms, and the reporting student's response was entered directly into the form's required response field rather than sent only by separate email, meaning his non-consent and retaliation objection is part of the submitted form record itself. Cross-References: the June 4, 2026 meeting group documenting his approved accommodations tied to his service dog, sleep schedule, and medication timing, and the short-notice clinical scheduling pattern already documented there; {{HU|HU-183}} (the related Intensive II registration process issue arising from this same registration cycle).

<span id="HU-186"></span>