Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations

This page reproduces entries from a student maintained issue tracker concerning Herzing University's MSN-DE prelicensure nursing program. Each entry carries the tracker's own status label, almost always CONFIRMED or POSSIBLE. Entries marked POSSIBLE are reported concerns pending verification, not findings. Student names have been replaced with consistent pseudonyms (Student A, Student B, and so on); the author is referred to as the reporting student. Faculty and staff are identified by name and role as they appear in the underlying records. See Herzing University Issue Tracker for method, severity definitions, and sources.

Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern the university's handling of disability accommodations under the ADA and Section 504. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See Herzing University Issue Tracker for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

Overview

This article collects 39 tracker entries dated from April 30, 2026 through September 13, 2026. The severity mix skews toward the high end: most entries are rated Critical or High, a smaller number are Medium, and only one, HU-003, carries a status of POSSIBLE rather than CONFIRMED. The entries cluster around several recurring problems. Proctoring vendor conduct is the largest single thread: repeated blocking of an approved sound machine accommodation (HU-018), a discrepancy between a 200 percent and 250 percent testing-time accommodation (HU-019), and a multi-part 2026 pattern of ProProctor unavailability, long connection delays, and a structurally narrower testing window on the only days available to the reporting student (HU-163a, HU-167, HU-167a, HU-167c).

A second thread concerns institutional communication and accessibility infrastructure: a screen reader incompatible with the Herzing Outlook web email system, a security policy that blocked the only workaround the reporting student found, and a faculty communication directive he could not meet because of his disability (HU-005, HU-054, HU-054a, HU-054b, HU-054c), together with a Disability Services contact address that routed through general Admissions (HU-006) and course content embedded in images that a screen reader could not read, which cost a student credit on a completed assignment (HU-021, HU-022).

A third thread is the recurring characterization of approved accommodations as discretionary courtesies rather than legal entitlements, and the practical burden this shifted onto the reporting student: an unauthorized department-chair approval layer blocking a routine extension (HU-125), an eight-hour clinical accommodation described as honored only "when possible" with a suggested course-failure risk for enforcing it (HU-145, HU-146, HU-147), a written meeting follow-up that memorialized contested points as agreed (HU-153), a location-exception process that treated a standing accommodation as a case-by-case request (HU-184), and an acute asthma episode in which the university offered a "one time courtesy" explicitly stated not to be an ADA accommodation (HU-197). Clinical scheduling and placement accommodations recur throughout (HU-024, HU-025, HU-135 and its sub-issues, HU-193), as do disputes over advance provision of synchronous session materials required by a written accommodation letter (HU-189, HU-192) and a software behavior that put an approved read-aloud accommodation at risk of being mistaken for academic dishonesty (HU-186). The owners named most often across this set are Disability Services and the ADA and Title IX Coordinators (Emilie Thompson for ground students, Rachel Dalmont for online students), Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, and the IT Department, with ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning named as a recurring vendor. The set closes with two entries documenting an active U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights investigation and an updated diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (HU-197, HU-198).

Issues

HU-003: Google Remote Desktop flagged by ProctorU; if running due to prior IT support session, removal requirement may be misdirected at student

Severity	High	Status	POSSIBLE
Issue type	Compliance Risk	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	Disability Services / Dean of Nursing

Finding. According to the tracker, Google Remote Desktop flagged by ProctorU; if running due to a prior IT support session, the removal requirement may be misdirected at the student.

Evidence. Grade Appeal Decision (2026-04-24): "Decision Instructions: Please remove software." The user confirmed the software was Google Remote Desktop. (Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.)

Reported statement. The decision instructed the student as follows:

Please remove software since this is a one-time approval with the knowledge that the software was removed and a clear test it out has been obtained.

Standards. If Google Remote Desktop was active from an IT-initiated support session: 28 CFR §35.130(b)(1), an institution may not impose requirements that shift institutional failures onto students. The ADA interactive process requires good-faith inquiry into cause before placing burden on a student.

Impact. If the software was running due to IT support, requiring removal shifts institutional responsibility to the student and mischaracterizes the cause.

Notes. It must be verified whether IT was using Google Remote Desktop for support, or whether the student was running it independently. See HU-018 for related sound machine blocking.

HU-004: The reporting student's ADA request for advance notice of testing procedure changes not responded to before exam

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Process Gap	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	Disability Services / Academic Appeals

Finding. The reporting student's ADA request for advance notice of testing procedure changes was not responded to before the exam.

Evidence. Per the tracker's evidence, student email to academicappeals@herzing.edu (2026-04-25, 2026-04-27, 2026-04-27 second follow-up). The grade appeal response said the inbox is not monitored. (Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.)

Reported statement.

I'm going to request an accommodation that if there is any changes to the testing procedures or rules that I'd be notified in advance. I believe this is a reasonable accommodation that complies with the requirements of the ADA.

Standards. ADA/Section 504; 34 CFR §104.44; Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985): institutions must engage in an interactive process with students regarding accommodation requests. Failure to respond constitutes a failure of the interactive process.

Impact. The student entered an 8 AM exam without confirmation that all requirements were met. The ADA interactive process obligation was not fulfilled. Documented anxiety and panic disorder make unresolved procedural uncertainty particularly harmful.

Notes. The reporting student has documented Bipolar II disorder, BPD, GAD, Panic Disorder, narcolepsy, sleep apnea, ADHD, and dysgraphia (confirmed in a November 9, 2025 email and October 2025 ADA plan emails).

HU-005: Screen reader incompatibility with Herzing Outlook web email interface reported; urgency classified as "inconvenienced"

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Accessibility	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	IT Department / Disability Services

Finding. Screen reader incompatibility with the Herzing Outlook web email interface was reported; the urgency was classified as "inconvenienced."

Evidence. Per the tracker's evidence, INC0552230 (2026-04-29): IT staff asked clarifying questions about which screen reader and whether the web or desktop version was affected.

Reported statement.

I'm sorry for the trouble you've had with screen readers the reporting student. To make sure I'm understanding properly, you mean that when you visit your student email account via the Outlook web page, your browser screen reader is not handling it well?

Standards. ADA/Section 504; Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794d): federal contractors and institutions receiving federal funds must ensure electronic communications are accessible. Priority email communications inaccessible via screen reader constitute a systemic barrier.

Impact. If the university's primary student email system is inaccessible via screen reader, the student's ability to receive time-sensitive academic, financial aid, clinical, and appeal communications is materially impaired.

Notes. Classified as Urgency 3 (Inconvenienced). Access to official university email is not a convenience; it is the primary channel for all institutional communications.

HU-006: Disability Services email contact routes through general Admissions address (admissions@herzing.edu)

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Process Gap	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	Academic Affairs / Compliance

Finding. The Disability Services email contact routes through the general Admissions address (admissions@herzing.edu).

Evidence. Multiple auto-replies (2026-01-31, 2026-02-01): From: Herzing Admissions <admissions@herzing.edu>, Subject: "Thank you for emailing Disability Services at Herzing University."

Reported statement.

Thank you for emailing Disability Services at Herzing University. Someone will respond to your email within 1-2 business days.

Standards. OCR Resolution Agreements (multiple) require institutions to maintain dedicated, adequately staffed disability services infrastructure separate from general admissions operations. Routing Disability Services inquiries through Admissions creates confusion and potential FERPA disclosure concerns.

Impact. Using the Admissions email for Disability Services creates confusion, potential FERPA disclosure risk, and signals inadequate dedicated Disability Services infrastructure.

Notes. The student sent accommodation emails from both a personal Gmail address and a Herzing email, suggesting possible difficulty accessing primary institutional email (see HU-005).

HU-018: Approved accommodation (sound machine) repeatedly blocked by ProctorU, causing 5+ exam reschedules across semester

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	ADA Violation Risk	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Disability Services

Finding. An approved accommodation (a sound machine) was repeatedly blocked by ProctorU, causing five or more exam reschedules across the semester.

Evidence. Official Accommodation Plan (October 2025, from ada@herzing.edu): "Student may use a noise-cancelling headset and/or a sound machine." Student email to Dr. Laban (2026-04-13): "due to Proctor U ID, sound machine, etc issues, I have had to reschedule my exams on 5 different occasions."

Reported statement.

Student may use a noise-cancelling headset and/or a sound machine. Headset may not be connected to an internet-capable device.

Standards. ADA/Section 504; 28 CFR §35.130(b)(7): an institution may not impose criteria that screen out individuals with disabilities from participation in programs. Contracting with a proctoring vendor whose policies block approved accommodations is the institution's liability, not the student's.

Impact. The student lost five exam-day time slots because ProctorU blocked an officially approved accommodation. Each reschedule represented a full wasted day of preparation, in a pattern of disruption across the entire semester.

Notes. This is one of the clearest documented issues: the accommodation plan explicitly includes a sound machine, and ProctorU blocked it repeatedly. The institution bears responsibility for its proctoring vendor's accommodation failures.

HU-019: Testing time accommodation changed from 200% to 250% with no formal update letter in available evidence

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Process Gap	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	Disability Services / ADA Coordinator

Finding. The testing time accommodation changed from 200 percent to 250 percent with no formal update letter in the available evidence.

Evidence. Accommodation Plan emails (October 2025): 200 percent time on timed testing. Dr. Laban email (December 2025): "I'm working on your new testing link with the 250% time." ProctorU reminder (2026-04-28): "NSG521 RN Fundamentals NGN Final Exam 2026 Spring C Accommodations 250%."

Reported statement.

Additionally, I'm working on your new testing link with the 250% time. Can you please cancel your 12/8 exam at this time while I'm getting the other link set up?

Standards. 34 CFR §104.44; ADA regulatory requirements for accommodation documentation. All accommodation changes must be formally documented and communicated to the student and relevant instructors.

Impact. If the 200 percent accommodation was insufficient and required upgrade to 250 percent, that suggests the initial assessment may have been inadequate. The informal process of changing via a "link" rather than an updated plan may leave the change undocumented if disputed.

Notes. The transition from 200 percent to 250 percent in December 2025 apparently was driven by ongoing ProctorU disruption issues (sound machine blocking). It is possible that the upgrade was a workaround rather than a properly assessed accommodation.

HU-021: NSG521 course content embedded instructions in images, making them inaccessible to screen readers; student received zero on 6-hour assignment

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	WCAG / ADA Violation	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	ADA Coordinator / Course Faculty / IT

Finding. NSG521 course content embedded instructions in images, making them inaccessible to screen readers; the student received a zero on a six-hour assignment.

Evidence. Student email thread (2026-04-07 to 2026-04-10), including Dr. Soles, Dr. Laban, and Emilie Thompson (ADA/Title IX Coordinator). The student wrote: "I did complete six hours of this assignment and now credit is being refused directly as a result of me using an accommodation for my disability."

Reported statement.

The module is not compliant with the act... I did complete six hours of this assignment and now credit is being refused directly as a result of me using an accommodation for my disability that the university said I would not need to have in writing because all of the modules were compliant with WCAG.

Standards. WCAG 2.1 Guideline 1.1.1 (Non-text content: all non-text content has a text alternative); ADA Title II; Section 504; Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Embedding assignment instructions in images without alt text is a direct WCAG 1.1.1 violation.

Impact. The student received a zero on an assignment completed over six hours because of inaccessible course content. The academic record was directly harmed by a WCAG violation, potentially affecting course grade and progression.

Notes. ADA Coordinator Emilie Thompson was actively engaged. The zero was disputed and the ADA office was investigating. The outcome is not confirmed in the available evidence. See also HU-022 for related institutional misrepresentation.

HU-022: Student was told at enrollment that screen reader accommodation was not needed because all modules were WCAG compliant; representation was false

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Institutional Misrepresentation	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	ADA Coordinator / Enrollment / Academic Affairs

Finding. The student was told at enrollment that a screen reader accommodation was not needed because all modules were WCAG compliant; per the tracker's evidence, the representation was false.

Evidence. Student email (2026-04-07): "I actually brought this up at the beginning of the semester last semester regarding the use of a screen reader and was told that I did not need an accommodation for that as the courses were already compliant." Dr. Soles response (2026-04-07): "I do not have anything about a screen reader in your accommodations."

Reported statement.

There's an assumption that the courses are already compliant and that they follow the law. There's typically not a need for that accommodation because you don't need an accommodation to use screen reading software unless a professor puts something in a photograph that is unreadable by the screen reading software.

Standards. ADA interactive process obligations; promissory reliance doctrine; institutional duty of honest representation to students. If the university represented that no formal accommodation was needed because of existing WCAG compliance, and that representation was false, the student was deprived of the opportunity to request and document a formal screen reader accommodation.

Impact. Because the student relied on the university's representation of WCAG compliance, no formal screen reader accommodation was requested. When the module proved non-compliant, faculty had no record of the accommodation, and the student faced a catch-22: no documented accommodation, yet the university had represented one was unnecessary.

Notes. This represents a systemic institutional failure: misrepresenting accessibility compliance to a student who then suffered academically as a direct result.

HU-024: Clinical sites assigned at 4+ hours and 2h39m from student's home despite documented medical need for proximity and prior disability services discussion

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Accommodation Failure	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	Clinical Placement / Disability Services

Finding. Clinical sites were assigned at four or more hours and two hours thirty-nine minutes from the student's home despite a documented medical need for proximity of approximately one hour, and despite a prior disability services discussion of that proximity need.

Evidence. Student email to Christina Kennedy (2026-04-02): "The first site assigned was about 4 hours away, and the current site is approximately 2 hours and 39 minutes from my home on the south side of Wichita. Unfortunately, this distance is not feasible for me given my medical conditions." (Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.)

Reported statement.

Managing asthma, sleep apnea, narcolepsy, glucose intolerance, and other health concerns requires significant coordination of equipment, medications, and support. The combination of an 8-hour clinical day with nearly 5 hours of driving is not something I can safely sustain.

Standards. ADA/Section 504; 34 CFR §104.44; Handbook p. 26: placements must be "within a reasonable distance from the campus or student's address on file." Reasonable distance must consider disability-related medical needs, and the ADA requires an individualized assessment of what constitutes a reasonable accommodation.

Impact. A student with narcolepsy, sleep apnea, and asthma was required to drive up to five-plus hours round trip for clinical, a safety risk documented in the student's own stated concern about ability to safely sustain the schedule.

Notes. Dr. Laban and Emilie Thompson were copied on the April 2 email. Executive Leadership had approved a mileage stipend for placements over 100 miles, but the stipend does not address the safety and medical feasibility concern for a student with narcolepsy and sleep apnea.

HU-025: Student formally requested 8-hour clinical shifts instead of 12-hour intensive days; no documented response in available evidence

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Accommodation Request, Unresolved	Date added	2026-04-30
Owner	ADA Coordinator / Clinical Coordinator

Finding. The student formally requested eight-hour clinical shifts instead of twelve-hour intensive days; per the tracker, no documented response appears in the available evidence.

Evidence. Accommodation Request email (2025-11-09, from [email redacted] to ada@herzing.edu, emthompson@herzing.edu, ppitts@herzing.edu, rprashad@herzing.edu): "I am formally requesting that my clinical time be scheduled as 8-hour shifts instead of 12-hour shifts for the session I am registered for: Session: 02/23/26 - 02/26/26."

Reported statement.

I am not asking to reduce total required hours, only to alter the daily duration so I can participate safely and effectively. With narcolepsy, insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea, bipolar disorder, ADHD, and panic/anxiety disorders, maintaining alertness, emotional regulation, and safe clinical performance across four consecutive 12-hour clinical days presents a significant challenge and potential safety concern.

Standards. ADA/Section 504; 34 CFR §104.44; ADA interactive process obligations. Duration modification of daily shifts, rather than total hours, is a reasonable accommodation to evaluate. Failure to respond to a formally submitted accommodation request violates the ADA interactive process.

Impact. The student attended the intensive without knowing whether the accommodation was granted. For a student with narcolepsy and sleep apnea, twelve-hour clinical days present documented safety concerns; no response means no accommodation, and a potential ADA failure.

Notes. The accommodation was requested on November 9, 2025. The intensive was scheduled for February 23 to 26, 2026. No response is documented in the available evidence.

HU-054: Lead: the inaccessibility of Herzing email to the student's screen reader produced three problems; see HU-054a, HU-054b, HU-054c

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Lead / index for a split cluster (three independent problems)	Date added	2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	IT Department / ADA Coordinator / Academic Affairs

Finding. This is the lead entry for three independent ADA email-accessibility problems documented in the reporting student's April 28, 2026 email to Emilie Thompson and IT, and Dr. Stacie Johnson's April 27, 2026 directive to the SNA board: HU-054a (the Herzing Outlook web email is inaccessible to the student's screen reader), HU-054b (Herzing IT security policy blocks the external-software workaround the student tried), and HU-054c (a Herzing-email-only communication directive the student's disability makes impossible to meet, with accessible external email routed to faculty spam). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

Notes. Split from the original combined HU-054 on 2026-06-06; existing references to HU-054 resolve to this lead. Substantially expands HU-005 with evidence of actual harm. Parts: HU-054a, HU-054b, HU-054c. Cross-References: HU-004 (documented disabilities), HU-005 (screen reader incompatible with Outlook), INC0552230 (prior IT ticket, Urgency 3, not escalated).

HU-054a: Herzing Outlook web email is inaccessible to the student's screen reader

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Accessibility Barrier: Primary Institutional Email Inaccessible to Screen Reader	Date added	2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	IT Department / ADA Coordinator

Finding. The Herzing Outlook web email system is not compatible with the student's screen reader, leaving him unable to use the institution's primary communication channel.

Evidence. Email from the reporting student to Emilie Thompson and IT (April 28, 2026) stating the screen reader software is not compatible with Outlook and does not work well.

Reported statement.

Unfortunately the screen reader software is not compatible with Outlook and does not work well.

Standards. ADA/Section 504; Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794d), requiring institutional electronic information to be accessible. Lead: HU-054. Expands HU-005 (screen reader incompatibility).

Impact. The student cannot reliably use Herzing's primary institutional communication channel, affecting access to faculty, time-sensitive notices, and academic communications.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-054 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

HU-054b: Herzing IT security policy blocks the external-software workaround the student tried

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Accessibility Barrier: Security Policy Blocks the Only Identified Workaround	Date added	2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	IT Department / ADA Coordinator

Finding. The student attempted to connect his email through external software so the screen reader would function, but Herzing IT security policy blocks students from using external programs; he called IT twice in one day and waited about twelve minutes on hold without resolution.

Evidence. The same April 28, 2026 email: the student tried to connect his email via external software so the screen reader would work, but Herzing IT blocks external programs as a security measure; he called IT twice and waited on hold about twelve minutes.

Reported statement.

I tried to connect my email via external software so the screen reader would work but Herzing IT blocks students from using external programs as a security measure which I completely understand but creates a barrier for me.

Standards. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(1): a public entity may not impose eligibility criteria or methods of administration that screen out individuals with disabilities. A neutral security policy that blocks the only accessible workaround, without an accommodation, operates as such a barrier. Lead: HU-054.

Impact. With the primary channel inaccessible and the workaround blocked, the student has no functioning accessible path to institutional email absent an accommodation.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-054 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

HU-054c: Herzing-email-only directive the student's disability makes impossible to meet, with accessible email going to spam

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Accommodation Conflict: Communication Directive Incompatible With Disability	Date added	2026-05-04 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	Dr. Stacie Johnson (SNA Faculty Advisor) / ADA Coordinator / Academic Affairs

Finding. Dr. Stacie Johnson directed the SNA board that she should receive emails from Herzing email only; because the student's disability makes Herzing email inaccessible, and his accessible external email is routed to faculty spam folders, the directive imposes a condition he cannot meet without accommodation and impaired his ability to conduct SNA business.

Evidence. Dr. Johnson's response to the SNA board (April 27, 2026) asked that in the future she receive emails from Herzing emails only; the student's accessible external email went to faculty spam.

Reported statement.

In the future, please ensure that I receive emails from Herzing emails only.

Standards. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(1) and ADA/Section 504: imposing a communication requirement a student cannot meet because of disability, without accommodation, is a barrier. Lead: HU-054.

Impact. The directive places the student in an impossible position, either use an inaccessible channel or be treated as noncompliant, and materially impairs his SNA leadership communications.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-054 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

HU-062c: A NOLA student received no accommodation after emergency surgery during the semester

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	No Accommodation Following Documented Medical Emergency	Date added	2026-05-05 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	ADA Coordinator / Campus Director / Academic Affairs

Finding. Student L reported that she had to have emergency surgery during the semester and that the campus kept on going without accommodating her.

Evidence. Per the tracker's evidence, the same April 27, 2026 thread states that, on top of everything, she had to have emergency surgery and the institution just kept on going.

Reported statement. According to the tracker, Student L, a pseudonym for a former Herzing NOLA student, described undergoing emergency surgery during the semester and stated that the institution continued its normal pace without pausing to accommodate her.

Standards. ADA/Section 504 and the Rehabilitation Act: institutions must provide reasonable accommodation for documented medical situations. Lead: HU-062.

Impact. A student undergoing emergency surgery without accommodation may be forced to fail courses she could otherwise have completed.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-062 (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Reported by Student L (former Herzing NOLA student); documented by the reporting student.

HU-125: Disability accommodation (3-day extension) blocked pending Department Chair approval

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Accommodation Implementation Blocked / Unauthorized Approval Requirement	Date added	2026-05-12
Owner	Dr. Heather Gregg / Dr. Raywattie Prashad / Dr. Danielle Laban / Emilie Thompson (ADA/Title IX)

Finding. The reporting student invoked his university-approved disability accommodation, a three-day extension on assessments, for the NSG525 Week 1 Pathophysiology Review Quiz. Dr. Gregg responded that unlocking the quiz was "outside of my scope" and escalated to Dr. Tressler, the course lead, who in turn awaited a response from Dr. Prashad. Dr. Prashad was traveling for work on May 12, 2026, and her out-of-office auto-reply indicated emails would be answered at her "earliest opportunity." Dr. Gregg explicitly stated she was "directed not to take further action until Dr. Prashad responds." The reporting student escalated clearly:

Respectfully, this isn't a request. I have invoked my accommodations. I have the right to these accommodations. I am not sure why I am not allowed to simply have my 3 day extension that is promised to me by the university. At the beginning of the semester, the university emailed my instructors to let them know what my approved accommodations were. None of my previous professors had to go through this just to simply allow me to have the 3-day extension the university has already granted me.

As of the final email in the chain, the reporting student was almost halfway through Week 2 with his three-day accommodation window expiring and the quiz still locked. He stated:

We're already almost halfway through week two and I can't get my accommodations applied as they're supposed to be and I'm given a three day extension which technically should've ended today but because we have failed to give me the ability to do what I'm supposed to do obviously will be later this week.

Dr. Gregg also confused the student by characterizing his accommodation invocation as a "request"; the reporting student corrected her, "Respectfully, this isn't a request," and separately asked, "So are we going to have to get Dr. Prashad to approve every disability accommodation going forward? Or just this one time." CC'd on the final emails were Dr. Prashad, Dr. Laban, Dr. Tressler, and Emilie Thompson.

Evidence. Email chain: the reporting student to Dr. Gregg / Dr. Gombar re NSG525 Week 1 quiz issues, May 2026. Dr. Gregg: "Unlocking the assignment is outside of my scope. I have presented your request to Dr. Tressler, the course lead, and she is currently awaiting a response from Dr. Prashad regarding your request." Dr. Gregg: "At this time, I was directed not to take further action until Dr. Prashad responds." Dr. Prashad's out-of-office auto-reply (May 12, 2026): "I am currently traveling for work today only 5.12. Emails will be answered at my earliest opportunity." The reporting student: "Respectfully, this isn't a request. I have invoked my accommodations. I have the right to these accommodations... None of my previous professors had to go through this just to simply allow me to have the 3-day extension the university has already granted me." The reporting student: "So are we going to have to get Dr. Prashad to approve every disability accommodation going forward? Or just this one time." (Source Group: Email chain: the reporting student to Dr. Gregg / Dr. Gombar / Dr. Tressler / Dr. Prashad / Dr. Laban / Emilie Thompson, May 2026, NSG525 Week 1 quiz accommodation dispute.)

Reported statement.

Unlocking the assignment is outside of my scope. I have presented your request to Dr. Tressler, and she is currently awaiting a response from Dr. Prashad regarding your request. [And:] Respectfully, this isn't a request. I have invoked my accommodations. I have the right to these accommodations. None of my previous professors had to go through this just to simply allow me to have the 3-day extension the university has already granted me. [And:] At this time, I was directed not to take further action until Dr. Prashad responds.

Standards. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §12132) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. §794): once a disability accommodation is formally approved by the institution, faculty are obligated to implement it without requiring further institutional approval from department chairs or program directors. The accommodation is a right, not a request subject to supervisory discretion. Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979): institutions must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified students with disabilities. HLC Criteria 2.E: institutions must ensure equitable treatment of all students including those with documented disabilities. The requirement that Dr. Prashad approve a standard three-day extension before Dr. Gregg can implement it creates an unauthorized additional approval layer not contemplated by the reporting student's accommodation agreement and not required by prior faculty in prior semesters; this delay itself constitutes a failure to provide the accommodation in a timely manner. OCR Dear Colleague Letter (2011): delays in implementing disability accommodations may constitute a violation of Section 504 and the ADA even if the accommodation is eventually provided.

Impact. The reporting student's three-day accommodation window was actively expiring while the institution deliberated. As of the final email in the chain, he was approaching the end of Week 2 and still had not been granted quiz access. The compounding factors are significant: (1) the quiz had confirmed coding errors that affected his ability to optimize his score; (2) the quiz deadline was non-standard, 12:59 AM versus the announced 11:59 PM, see HU-126, catching him and other students off guard; (3) his accommodation was invoked precisely because of these institutional failures; and (4) the accommodation was then blocked by the same institution. The characterization of his accommodation invocation as a "request" requiring supervisory approval fundamentally misunderstands the legal nature of approved disability accommodations.

Notes. CC chain at final escalation: Dr. Prashad (rprashad@herzing.edu), Dr. Laban (Danielle Laban), Dr. Tressler (jtressler@herzing.edu), Emilie Thompson (ADA/Title IX Coordinator). Dr. Gregg's final response confirmed she was waiting for Dr. Prashad before acting. Dr. Prashad's out-of-office indicated she was unavailable that day. This issue extends HU-004 (ADA accommodation failures) and HU-005 (accommodation documentation failures). The statement that "None of my previous professors had to go through this" confirms prior faculty implemented the three-day extension without Department Chair involvement, meaning this semester's process is an anomalous and unauthorized escalation. Cross-reference: HU-004 (ADA accommodation failures), HU-005 (accommodation plan issues), HU-006 (ProctorU accommodation), HU-114 (conflicting chain of communication), HU-112 (NSG525 duplicate quiz answers), HU-126 (quiz deadline discrepancy).

HU-133c: Student A's documented medical accommodations for priority clinical placement, structured communication, and advance notice of changes were violated by the uncorrected error

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Priority-Placement and Communication Accommodations Violated	Date added	2026-05-27 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	ADA Coordinator / Dr. Rachel Powell / Clinical Coordinator

Finding. Student A holds a documented medical accommodation letter from her Allina Health primary care provider requesting priority registration for clinical placement, structured communication surrounding clinical placement, advance notice of schedule and clinical changes, extended time, and a 48-business-hour faculty response time. The uncorrected placement error and lack of communication violate the priority-placement, structured-communication, and advance-notice accommodations specifically.

Evidence. Medical accommodation letter from Student A's primary care provider via Allina Health MyChart, requesting priority registration for clinical placement, structured communication, advance notice of schedule and clinical changes, extended time, and a 48-business-hour faculty response time. (Source Group: Medical accommodation letter, Allina Health; Clinician Nexus records.)

Reported statement.

Priority registration for clinical placement. Structured communication surrounding clinical placement. Advance notice of schedule/clinical changes.

Standards. ADA (42 U.S.C. §12132) and Section 504 (29 U.S.C. §794): once accommodations are documented by a medical provider, the institution must implement them; priority clinical placement and structured communication are documented accommodations being violated by the uncorrected assignment. Lead: HU-133. See HU-134b (48-business-hour policy confirmed).

Impact. A student whose documented accommodation is priority placement was left with an uncorrected, incorrect placement and no structured communication, the precise circumstances the accommodation was meant to prevent.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-133 (lead). Split 2026-06-06. The accommodation letter documents anxiety and mood concerns, referenced only as relevant to the documented violations. Source Group: Medical accommodation letter (Allina Health); Clinician Nexus records.

HU-135: Lead: the reporting student's 8-hour clinical shift accommodation was not properly implemented at Ascension via Christi St. Joseph

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Lead / index for a split cluster (8-hour accommodation implementation failures)	Date added	2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement, National Online) / Professor Troy Frazier (Adjunct Clinical Instructor) / Dr. Danielle Laban / Emilie Thompson (ADA Coordinator, out of office until June 3)

Finding. This is the lead entry for the failure to properly implement the reporting student's eight-hour clinical shift accommodation at Ascension via Christi St. Joseph in Wichita, with Adjunct Clinical Instructor Professor Troy Frazier. Tracked separately: HU-135a (the schedule exceeded the 8-hour limit, originally 7:30 AM to 5 PM, about 9.5 hours, then 7:30 to 4, with the student having to correct it himself), HU-135b (scheduling offered as a range, 7:30 to 3:30 or 8:00 to 4:00, rather than a fixed consistent schedule), HU-135c (Professor Frazier stating the student may have to work past the 8-hour time frame as part of nursing), HU-135d (Powell dismissing the advocacy as students not creating their own schedule), and HU-135e (the ADA Coordinator out of office until June 3, one day before the clinical start). The reporting student disclosed narcolepsy and diabetes as bases for the accommodation.

Notes. Clinical site: Ascension via Christi St. Joseph, Wichita, Kansas; clinical start June 5, 2026; Thursdays and Fridays 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM. A required-hours discrepancy is noted (108 hours in this chain versus 96 in the HU-128 weekly report). Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; existing references to HU-135 resolve here. Parts: HU-135a, HU-135b, HU-135c, HU-135d, HU-135e. Cross-References: HU-004, HU-005, HU-125, HU-128 (Week 3 no placement, now resolved), HU-154 (conflicting clinical start times).

HU-135a: The clinical schedule exceeded the 8-hour accommodation limit, and the student had to identify and correct his own accommodation violation

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Schedule Exceeding the 8-Hour Limit / Burden-Shift to Student	Date added	2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	Dr. Rachel Powell / Professor Troy Frazier

Finding. The original schedule listed shifts from 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM, about 9.5 hours, exceeding the 8-hour accommodation; Professor Frazier also initially stated clinic was from 8 to 5 and 7:30 to 5. The reporting student correctly identified that 7:30 AM plus 8 hours ends at 3:30 PM, not 5:00 PM, and had to repeatedly correct the schedule (7:30 to 5, then 7:30 to 4, both over 8 hours), placing the burden of accommodation enforcement on the student. Powell's original email also contained a typo stating shifts ran 7:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.

Evidence. Email chain: the original schedule listed 7:30 to 5; Frazier stated clinic runs from 8 to 5 (and 7:30 to 5); Powell's email stated 7:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. (AM intended); the reporting student corrected that the schedule was originally 7:30 to 5, then 7:30 to 4, both over eight hours, and stated he should not have to constantly make those corrections.

Reported statement.

I never claimed to make my own schedule... Schedule was originally 7:30-5, then 7:30-4, both over 8 hours. I should not have to constantly make those corrections.

Standards. ADA (42 U.S.C. §12132) and Section 504 (29 U.S.C. §794): approved accommodations must be implemented as specified. OCR Dear Colleague Letter (2011): institutions must ensure accommodations are communicated to and implemented by all relevant parties, including clinical instructors. Requiring the student to identify and correct his own accommodation violation shifts the institution's burden onto him. Lead: HU-135.

Impact. A schedule exceeding the eight-hour limit has direct medical consequences for a student with narcolepsy and diabetes; the repeated need for the student to correct it is a burden-shift and a sign the accommodation was not built into the schedule.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-135 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

HU-135b: Scheduling was offered as a range rather than a fixed, consistent schedule, inconsistent with the consistent-scheduling accommodation

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Range Scheduling Inconsistent With Consistent-Scheduling Accommodation	Date added	2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	Dr. Rachel Powell

Finding. After the length was corrected, Powell confirmed hours would be either 7:30 to 3:30 or 8:00 to 4:00, offering a range rather than a fixed schedule. Consistent scheduling is a documented medical necessity for narcolepsy and diabetes management, so a variable start undermines the accommodation.

Evidence. Powell's confirmation that hours would be either 7:30 to 3:30 or 8:00 to 4:00; the reporting student's escalation noting that consistent scheduling is important given narcolepsy and diabetes.

Reported statement.

your hours will be either 7:30-3:30 or 8:00-4:00.

Standards. ADA and Section 504: the consistent-scheduling need for narcolepsy and diabetes is a documented medical necessity, not a preference; offering a variable start does not satisfy a consistent-scheduling accommodation. Lead: HU-135.

Impact. A variable start time disrupts medication timing and sleep scheduling for narcolepsy and diabetes, the very conditions the accommodation addresses.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-135 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

HU-135c: Professor Frazier stated the student may have to work past the 8-hour time frame as part of nursing

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Clinical Faculty Statement Overriding the Accommodation	Date added	2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	Professor Troy Frazier (Adjunct Clinical Instructor)

Finding. Professor Frazier stated there may be times the student has to work past the eight-hour time frame and that this is part of nursing, and separately proposed a debrief between 3:30 and 4 PM and possibly coming in earlier to take part in shift change as the summer progressed, each of which could extend the working day beyond the eight-hour accommodation.

Evidence. Frazier: there may be times the student has to work past the eight-hour time frame, this is part of nursing, with the goal to be completed by 3:30 and going over treated as a learning opportunity; Frazier proposed a debrief between 3:30 and 4 PM and coming in earlier for shift change. The reporting student responded suggesting the debrief run 3 to 3:30 to respect the eight-hour limit.

Reported statement.

There may be times where you have to work past the 8 hour time frame. This is part of nursing.

Standards. ADA (42 U.S.C. §12132) and Section 504 (29 U.S.C. §794): an approved accommodation is a right that cannot be conditioned on clinical-faculty discretion; a statement that the student may be required to exceed the limit as part of nursing does not override the accommodation. Lead: HU-135.

Impact. Frazier's statement creates a documented risk the accommodation will not be honored in practice, with direct medical consequences for the student's conditions.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-135 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

HU-135d: Powell's response dismissed the accommodation advocacy as students not creating their own schedule

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Mischaracterization of Accommodation Enforcement	Date added	2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	Dr. Rachel Powell

Finding. Powell responded to the reporting student's accommodation advocacy by stating that students do not create their own schedule with this faculty-led model and that Professor Frazier would ensure the clinical experience is accommodated appropriately, framing the request as schedule creation rather than accommodation enforcement. The reporting student corrected that he never claimed to make his own schedule and was only flagging that the schedule exceeded eight hours.

Evidence. Powell: students do not create their own schedule with this faculty-led model; Professor Frazier will ensure the clinical experience is accommodated appropriately. The reporting student: I never claimed to make my own schedule.

Reported statement.

students do not create their own schedule with this faculty-led model.

Standards. ADA and Section 504: enforcing an approved accommodation is a legal right, not an attempt to create a personal schedule; mischaracterizing it as such signals a misunderstanding of the institution's accommodation obligations. Lead: HU-135.

Impact. Framing accommodation enforcement as improper schedule creation discourages advocacy and signals that clinical-placement leadership may not fully understand its legal obligations.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-135 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

HU-135e: The ADA Coordinator was out of office until June 3, one day before the clinical start

Severity	Medium	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Accommodation Support Gap at the Critical Moment	Date added	2026-06-02 (split 2026-06-06)
Owner	Emilie Thompson (ADA and Title IX Coordinator) / Dr. Danielle Laban

Finding. Emilie Thompson, the ADA and Title IX Coordinator, was out of office until June 3, 2026, one day before the first scheduled clinical day, leaving the reporting student without institutional accommodation support during the period when the eight-hour accommodation was being mis-implemented.

Evidence. Emilie Thompson's out-of-office message returning June 3, 2026; the reporting student's escalation to Danielle Laban and Emilie Thompson during the same period.

Reported statement.

I'm not sure why we continue to have issues with understanding and respecting the eight-hour accommodation.

Standards. ADA and Section 504; OCR Dear Colleague Letter (2011): institutions must ensure accommodation support is available, particularly at implementation. The ADA Coordinator's absence at the critical moment left a gap in institutional support. Lead: HU-135.

Impact. With the ADA Coordinator unavailable until the day before clinical, the student had no institutional accommodation support while the schedule problems were unresolved.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-135 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.

HU-142: Discussion board closed for comments at the Sunday deadline, blocking submission under an approved 72-hour extension accommodation

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Discussion Board Auto-Closure Blocks Approved 72-Hour Extension Accommodation	Date added	2026-06-03
Owner	Professor Wilma Hart-Flynn / Rachel Dalmont (ADA/Title IX Coordinator, Online Students) / NSG 525 Faculty

Finding. The reporting student attempted to submit his second peer reply for the prior week's discussion post in NSG 525-7E Clinical II, using his approved 72-hour disability accommodation extension, but the discussion board would not accept the submission because the topic was closed for comments. The Peer Response instructions state that peer responses are due Sunday at 11:59 PM CT, and the LMS displays "This topic is closed for comments" after that deadline. The reporting student's official ADA accommodation notification for this exact course (NSG 525-7E) explicitly includes: (1) a 72-hour extension on assignments when requested prior to the original deadline, and (2) permission for the student to submit all portions of the discussion post assignment on the same date. The automatic closure of the discussion board at the standard deadline directly prevents the reporting student from exercising his approved 72-hour extension, because the technical mechanism that closes comments does not account for accommodated extended deadlines. The reporting student emailed Professor Wilma Hart-Flynn, the same faculty member who deducted points in error in HU-124, to ask how to proceed, and attached the completed peer reply he was unable to submit. The attached reply is a substantive, fully referenced post with APA citations to Pew Charitable Trusts 2018, Gordon and Catalini 2018, and GAO 2019, confirming the work was complete and ready before he was blocked by the closed board. This is a systemic conflict between the LMS discussion-board auto-closure configuration and approved disability accommodations: a student with a 72-hour extension cannot use it if the board closes at the original deadline.

Evidence. Email, the reporting student to Wilma Hart-Flynn: "As you know, I get a three-day extension due to my disability accommodations. I went in to do my second reply for last week's discussion post, and it will not allow me to submit it because comments are closed. Please let me know how to proceed. I am attaching for your review." Attached: complete peer reply to Student CL with APA references. Canvas/LMS Peer Response screenshot: "Please read and respond to at least two of your peers' initial postings... All peer responses are due by Sunday at 11:59 pm CT... This topic is closed for comments." Official ADA Accommodation Notification (NSG 525-7E, Clinical II), sent via IT Apps Auto Notifications to Heather Gregg and the reporting student: 72-hour extension on assignments when requested prior to the original deadline; student is permitted to submit all portions of the discussion post assignment on the same date. ADA/Title IX Coordinators listed on the notification: Online Students, Rachel Dalmont (ada@herzing.edu, rdalmont@herzing.edu, [phone redacted]); Ground Students, Emilie Thompson (ada@herzing.edu, emthompson@herzing.edu, [phone redacted]). (Source Group: email to Professor Wilma Hart-Flynn re closed discussion comments and 72-hour accommodation with attached peer reply; Canvas/LMS Peer Response screenshot; Official ADA Accommodation Notification for NSG 525-7E.)

Reported statement.

As you know, I get a three-day extension due to my disability accommodations. I went in to do my second reply for last week's discussion post, and it will not allow me to submit it because comments are closed. Please let me know how to proceed. [LMS]: This topic is closed for comments. [Accommodation letter]: 72-hour extension on assignments when requested prior to the original deadline. Student is permitted to submit all portions of the discussion post assignment on the same date.

Standards. Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12132) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794): an institution that approves a 72-hour extension accommodation must configure its systems so the accommodation can actually be used; an LMS discussion board that auto-closes at the original deadline and blocks submission defeats the approved accommodation. The accommodation letter itself states that faculty are required to provide approved accommodations in a timely and consistent manner and that students should promptly notify the ADA/Title IX Coordinator if accommodations are not implemented. The board closure is a failure of implementation: the accommodation exists on paper but cannot be exercised because the technical mechanism does not honor the extended deadline. OCR Dear Colleague Letter (2011): institutions are responsible for ensuring electronic and information technology used in instruction is accessible and does not deny students with disabilities the benefits of approved accommodations. This is the same pattern as HU-125 (accommodation blocked by approval-layer delay) and HU-126 (quiz deadline closing before accommodated retake): the accommodation is consistently defeated by deadline and closure mechanics.

Impact. The reporting student completed a substantive, fully referenced peer reply within his 72-hour accommodation window but could not submit it because the discussion board was closed for comments. Unless Professor Hart-Flynn manually reopens the board or grades the attached reply, the reporting student loses credit for work he was entitled to submit under his accommodation. This is the second documented grading and accommodation problem with this same faculty member, HU-124, where she deducted points in error and was non-responsive Monday and Wednesday. The structural risk is broader: any online student with a 72-hour extension accommodation in a course using auto-closing discussion boards faces the same barrier every week, meaning the accommodation is systematically unusable for discussion assignments unless faculty manually intervene each time. The accommodation letter places the burden on the student to notify the coordinator when accommodations are not implemented, which forces the student to repeatedly advocate for an accommodation that should function automatically.

Notes. New personnel identified: Rachel Dalmont, ADA/Title IX Coordinator for Online Students (ada@herzing.edu, rdalmont@herzing.edu, [phone redacted]). This clarifies the ADA coordinator structure: Rachel Dalmont handles Online Students; Emilie Thompson handles Ground Students (emthompson@herzing.edu, [phone redacted]). This is relevant to HU-135, where Emilie Thompson was out of office until June 3 just before the reporting student's clinical start; as an online student, the reporting student's coordinator is actually Rachel Dalmont. The official accommodation notification provides the full confirmed list of the reporting student's NSG 525-7E accommodations: 250 percent time on timed testing; 150 percent time on timed skills checkoffs; short breaks, visual breaks, whiteboard, noise-cancelling headset, self-administer medication, snack and water, stand and stretch during testing; 72-hour extension on assignments when requested prior to the original deadline; permitted to submit all portions of the discussion post assignment on the same date; PowerPoint slides 24 hours prior to synchronous sessions; instructor to record and transcribe synchronous sessions; timely feedback. The letter was sent via IT Apps Auto Notifications (IT-Apps-AutoNotifications@herzing.edu) to Heather Gregg and the reporting student. Cross-reference: HU-124 (Wilma Hart-Flynn deducted points in error, non-responsive), HU-125 (accommodation blocked pending chair approval), HU-126 (quiz closed before accommodated retake), HU-135 (8-hour accommodation, Thompson out of office), HU-004/HU-005 (ADA accommodation failures). POSSIBLE follow-up: whether Professor Hart-Flynn reopened the board or accepted the attached reply for credit.

HU-145: Eight-hour clinical accommodation characterized by staff as conditional and tied to course-failure risk

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Approved Accommodation Framed as Conditional / Course-Failure Warning for Honoring It	Date added	2026-06-04
Owner	Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP) / Emily/Emilie (ADA/Title IX) / Dr. Rachel Powell

Finding. During the June 4, 2026 meeting, Herzing staff repeatedly characterized the reporting student's approved eight-hour clinical accommodation as conditional rather than guaranteed. Dr. Danielle Laban stated that what the accommodation says related to the eight hours is that, when possible, eight hours can be honored, and that the institution is at the mercy of the clinical sites and cannot make a site honor it. The ADA/Title IX coordinator (Emily/Emilie) stated that this "when possible" language applies for every professor for the rest of the program, and warned that if the reporting student were to leave in the middle of a patient-care activity at his accommodated end time, abandoning patient care, that could potentially lead to a course failure. The reporting student, who has a documented eight-hour accommodation tied to medication timing, ADHD medication, diabetes medication, and a GI medication, and the trade-off that he would not bring his service dog if the eight-hour limit was honored, expressed that this framing did not match his prior understanding that clinicals were eight hours start to finish. The concern documented here is that an approved ADA/Section 504 accommodation is being presented to the student as non-guaranteeable and that honoring his own accommodated end time is linked to a risk of course failure.

Evidence. Dr. Danielle Laban: "what your accommodation says related to the eight hours is... when possible, eight hours can be honored; we are going to do everything we can to meet that eight hour need, but a site that won't honor that, we can't make them honor." Emily/Emilie: "I want to be clear that what it says [applies] for every professor for the rest of your program; eight hours is not something that is fully within the control of your instructor... there may be a situation that arises where you would need to be there beyond eight hours; if you were to leave in the middle of doing a patient care activity, that could be... potentially lead to a course failure." The reporting student: "that's been my understanding in conversations with you guys... clinicals are eight hours, that's start to finish." (Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting, audio and transcript; provided by the reporting student.)

Reported statement.

[Laban]: what your accommodation says related to the eight hours is... when possible, eight hours can be honored. [Emily/Emilie]: if you are expected... to stay past your exact eight hour end time, that if you were to abandon patient care that that could potentially lead to a course failure.

Standards. Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794): once an accommodation is approved as reasonable, the institution is obligated to implement it; characterizing an approved accommodation as honored only "when possible," and warning that adhering to the accommodated limit could cause course failure, risks denying the student the benefit of the approved accommodation. The accommodation letter (see HU-142) states faculty are required to provide approved accommodations in a timely and consistent manner. If the institution believes an accommodation fundamentally alters an essential clinical requirement, the proper process is a documented interactive review with the ADA/Title IX Coordinator, not an in-meeting warning that honoring the accommodation may lead to failure. OCR guidance: discouraging or penalizing the use of an approved accommodation can constitute a denial of access. Cross-reference HU-135 (the underlying eight-hour dispute with Professor Troy Frazier).

Impact. The reporting student is placed in the position of being told that the eight-hour limit he relies on for medical reasons may not be honored and that adhering to it during patient care could cause him to fail the course. This creates a chilling effect on the use of an approved accommodation and shifts the risk of the institution's placement limitations onto the student. Because staff stated this framing applies for the rest of the program, the concern is not limited to one course but is presented as the standing posture toward his eight-hour accommodation.

Notes. Speaker 3 identified by the student as Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP). Speaker 4 is the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie; note that per HU-142 the online-student ADA/Title IX Coordinator is Rachel Dalmont while Emilie Thompson serves ground students, so an online student's accommodations being handled in this meeting by Emily/Emilie may itself be an inconsistency to verify. Cross-reference: HU-135 (eight-hour accommodation, Troy Frazier), HU-142 (accommodation letter and coordinator structure), HU-125 (accommodation blocked pending approval), HU-128/HU-134 (at the mercy of the clinical sites language). Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group (HU-145 through HU-152).

HU-146: Staff suggested the reporting student may have to take an approved break and made continued progression contingent on whether a site can meet his accommodations

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Progression Made Contingent on Accommodation Availability / Suggested Forced Break	Date added	2026-06-04
Owner	Emily/Emilie (ADA/Title IX) / Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP) / Clinical Placement

Finding. During the June 4, 2026 meeting, the ADA/Title IX coordinator (Emily/Emilie) told the reporting student that in future semesters the institution may not have a clinical site that can accommodate everything, that he needs to make a determination about whether he feels he can move forward with the clinical, and that he may be in a situation where he would have to take an approved break if the program does not have a clinical that is sufficiently flexible to meet his needs. This frames the student's continued progression through the program as contingent on whether Herzing can locate a site that meets his approved accommodations, and raises the prospect of a break in enrollment, a forced sit-out, if it cannot. For a student with documented disabilities, conditioning continued enrollment on the institution's ability to meet accommodations, and suggesting an approved break as the fallback, is a significant concern.

Evidence. Emily/Emilie: "it is pretty uncommon that we have this available, so I do want to prepare you that in future semesters we may not have a site that can accommodate everything, and so I think ultimately you also need to make a determination about if you feel that you can move forward with the clinical; we are going to have to make that determination as we have clinical sites assigned and available... or not, because then you may be in a situation where you would have to take an approved break if we do not have a clinical that is this flexible." (Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting, audio and transcript.)

Reported statement.

you may be in a situation where you would have to take an approved break if we do not have a clinical that is this flexible.

Standards. Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794): institutions must provide reasonable accommodations and may not exclude an otherwise qualified student with a disability from program participation because of the institution's own difficulty arranging accommodations; suggesting a forced break in enrollment as the consequence of the institution being unable to place the student with accommodations may constitute a denial of program access. The proper mechanism for any claim that an accommodation fundamentally alters an essential requirement is a documented interactive process and individualized assessment, not a general warning that the student may have to sit out. 34 C.F.R. §668.14 (administrative capability): the institution is responsible for arranging clinical placements. Cross-reference HU-135, HU-145.

Impact. The reporting student is told he may have to pause his education through an approved break if the institution cannot find a sufficiently flexible site, effectively transferring the consequences of the school's placement limitations to the student in the form of delayed progression. This creates uncertainty about his ability to continue and complete the program and pressures him to consider whether to proceed without full accommodation.

Notes. Distinct from HU-145 (which concerns the conditional framing and course-failure warning); this issue concerns the suggestion of a forced break and progression being made contingent on accommodation availability. Cross-reference: HU-135, HU-145, HU-142. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group (HU-145 through HU-152).

HU-147: Accommodation request reframed by staff as a concern about the reporting student's patient-safety fitness for the clinical site

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Accommodation Request Reframed as Question About Student Fitness / Patient Safety	Date added	2026-06-04
Owner	Emily/Emilie (ADA/Title IX)

Finding. During the June 4, 2026 meeting, when the reporting student explained that his eight-hour limit and 4:30 PM medication timing are medically necessary and raised patient-safety reasons why he should not be on the floor past those limits, the risk of low blood sugar, medication wearing off, and GI effects, the ADA/Title IX coordinator (Emily/Emilie) responded that she was "a little concerned" that he seemed to have concerns, and stated that this could raise general concerns about patient safety with him being in the clinical site. This turns the student's own articulation of why his accommodation is needed into a question about whether he is fit to be in the clinical environment. Reframing an accommodation request as a doubt about the student's clinical fitness or patient safety can deter students from asserting accommodations and risks treating a disability-related need as a competence problem.

Evidence. Emily/Emilie: "I will be transparent that I am a little concerned that you seem to have concerns about... [the exact end time]; based on what you are sharing, [concern] if we are having generally concerns about patient safety with you being in the clinical site." The reporting student: "patient safety should never depend on me independently... there should be a nurse or someone who I am shadowing... what I do not want to happen is to be on the floor and pass out because my blood sugar has dropped because I am there two hours late, or miss a step because my medication is wearing off." (Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting, audio and transcript.)

Reported statement.

I will be transparent that I am a little concerned that you seem to have concerns about [it]... if we are having generally concerns about patient safety with you being in the clinical site.

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 institution may not treat a student's request for a disability accommodation as evidence that the student is unfit; doing so risks disability discrimination. Any direct-threat or fitness determination must be based on an individualized, evidence-based assessment, not on the student's act of requesting an accommodation or expressing safety concerns. OCR guidance discourages responses that penalize or pathologize accommodation requests. Cross-reference HU-135, HU-145.

Impact. By reframing the reporting student's accommodation request as a patient-safety concern about him, staff put the student in the position of having his disability-related needs treated as a potential disqualifier for the clinical site. This can chill future accommodation requests and creates a risk that a disability-related need is recharacterized as a competence or safety deficiency, which could affect his standing in the program.

Notes. Distinct from HU-145 and HU-146; this concerns the reframing of the accommodation request as a fitness and patient-safety question. Cross-reference: HU-135, HU-145, HU-146, HU-142. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group (HU-145 through HU-152).

HU-153: Discrepancies between the June 4, 2026 recorded accommodation meeting and Emilie Thompson's written follow-up

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	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-145 through HU-152: she is Emilie Thompson. Notably, per 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.

[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.

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-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-142. No legal conclusion is asserted; these are documented discrepancies between two records of the same meeting. Cross-reference HU-135 (underlying eight-hour dispute), HU-145 (conditional framing and course-failure warning), HU-146 (approved break), HU-147 (patient-safety reframing), 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-145 through 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-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-135, HU-142, HU-145, HU-146, HU-147, HU-148 (schedule changes), HU-149 (no meeting point). Relates to the June 4, 2026 meeting group (HU-145 through HU-152). POSSIBLE follow-up: whether the reporting student responds to correct the record, and whether the institution amends the written summary.

HU-163a: The student could not reschedule the accommodated NSG524 exam to the remaining in-window date during a documented weather emergency

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Accommodated Exam Not Rescheduleable Within the Open Window	Date added	2026-06-06
Owner	ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Herzing Testing and Accommodations

Finding. On June 6, 2026, with severe weather in Kansas interrupting his internet, the reporting student attempted to reschedule the NSG524 Mental Health exam to Sunday June 7, a date still inside his open testing window (June 1 to June 7, 2026). The scheduling page showed June 7 unavailable (no ProProctor), and the vendor stated it could not reschedule within its restriction window. Because his 250 percent accommodation requires a live ProProctor, the unavailability meant the accommodated exam could not be taken before the window closed.

Evidence. ProctorU scheduling page (NSG524, window 6/1/26 to 6/7/26, 375 minutes, previously scheduled Saturday 06/06/26 2:20 PM CDT) showing the remaining in-window date unavailable; ProctorU live chat (June 6, 2026, 1:46 to 1:49 PM CDT); NWS Wichita Weather Forecast Office severe-weather page (June 6, 2026, 1:40 PM CDT, scattered storms and flood warnings); the reporting student's email to Herzing faculty stating Sunday was greyed out despite the open window through the 7th and that he requires a ProProctor.

Reported statement.

Sunday is greyed out despite my open testing window through the 7th. I am required to use a proproctor in conjunction with my accommodations. [Live chat:] this is an emergency due to bad weather.

Standards. ADA Title III, examinations and courses (42 U.S.C. §12189; 28 C.F.R. §36.309): an entity that offers examinations related to postsecondary education must offer them in an accessible place and manner, including necessary accommodations; Section 504 (29 U.S.C. §794); 34 C.F.R. §668.14 (the institution remains responsible for its testing vendor). A 250 percent time accommodation that cannot be exercised within the open window because the accommodated proctoring is unavailable is an accommodation-access failure. Lead: HU-163.

Impact. The student was prevented from taking his accommodated exam within the window through no fault of his own, exposing him to a missed-exam penalty and a makeup process for a weather-and-vendor failure.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-163 (lead). Documented 2026-06-06. The weather is independently corroborated by the NWS Wichita page.

HU-167: Lead: no ProProctor was available for the reporting student's NSG523 exam on Saturday June 13, 2026

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Lead / index for a split cluster (ProProctor Saturday unavailability; 75-plus-minute exam start delay; effective window narrowing; institutional contacts out of office)	Date added	2026-06-13
Owner	ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Herzing Testing and Accommodations / Dr. Danielle Laban / Dr. Nicole Franklin / Dr. Raywattie Prashad / Dr. Stephanie Black

Finding. This is the lead entry for a cluster of accommodation and proctoring-access failures on Saturday June 13, 2026, during the NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 (ONL: HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 2026 Summer C, Accommodations 250%, Herzing University, HESI). The reporting student logged in at approximately 2:25 PM CDT and attempted three times over the following hour to connect with a ProProctor, as required by his approved accommodation. He was connected to a regular support agent, Gedela T., who asked him to wait for a ProProctor, but no ProProctor connected. Exam start was delayed over one hour and fifteen minutes; the reporting student ultimately confirmed the exam was completed but noted the delay. He identified that ProProctor appears to be unavailable on weekends and raised that his Thursday and Friday clinical schedule leaves weekends as his only available testing days, meaning the ProProctor requirement effectively provides him a narrower testing window than peers without the accommodation. Key institutional contacts he emailed for help, Dr. Nicole Franklin and Dr. Stephanie Black, were simultaneously out of office, with Franklin supporting the Birmingham Campus during a transition and Black on PTO. Tracked separately: HU-167a (ProProctor Saturday unavailability for NSG523), HU-167b (over one hour and fifteen minute exam start delay, three failed connection attempts), HU-167c (effective testing window narrower than peers due to ProProctor unavailability on the only days available to the student), and HU-167d (key institutional escalation contacts out of office simultaneously during an active accommodation failure).

Notes. Exam: ONL: HU NSG523 Med Surg Nursing I Exam 1 2026 Summer C, Accommodations 250%, Herzing University, HESI. The reporting student logged in approximately 2:25 PM CDT Saturday June 13, 2026; screenshots timestamped 3:27 PM to 3:44 PM CDT show the waiting state. The ProctorU screen showed "Setup Complete! Exam will Begin Once Connected to Proctor" with an average wait of five minutes, then shifted to "Wait time is longer than expected" with an average wait of eight minutes. The chat agent Gedela T. is not a ProProctor, which the reporting student confirmed by asking. The session was transferred to another technician at 3:43 PM. The reporting student emailed Dr. Tanetshia Brown (office hours), Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Nicole Franklin, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, David Steele, and Dr. Stephanie Black at 3:39 PM from his Herzing email. Added 2026-06-13. (Source Group: seven ProctorU chat/screen screenshots, Saturday June 13, 2026, 3:27 PM to 3:44 PM CDT; email from the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Nicole Franklin, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, David Steele, Dr. Stephanie Black, and Dr. Tanetshia Brown, sent approximately 3:39 PM, June 13, 2026; follow-up email from the reporting student confirming the exam completed after over a one hour fifteen minute delay; provided by the reporting student.) Parts: HU-167a, HU-167b, HU-167c, HU-167d. Cross-References: HU-002 (prior ProctorU exam block, NSG521), HU-135 (eight-hour clinical accommodation; clinical scheduling constraints), HU-163 and HU-163a (NSG524 ProctorU weather and no-ProProctor failure, lead cluster; accommodation not exercisable within window), HU-163d (vendor-institution ping-pong), HU-166 (NSG524 appeal process-integrity issues).

HU-167a: No ProProctor was available for the NSG523 exam on Saturday June 13, 2026

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	ProProctor Unavailability on Saturday, Accommodation Not Deliverable	Date added	2026-06-13
Owner	ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Herzing Testing and Accommodations

Finding. On Saturday June 13, 2026, the reporting student connected to ProctorU for his NSG523 exam (250 percent accommodation, Herzing University, HESI). The agent, Gedela T., introduced herself as "your proctor today." The reporting student immediately asked whether she was a ProProctor, stating he was supposed to connect with one for his exam, and she responded "Just a moment please," indicating she was not one and needed to find one. No ProProctor connected during the documented session. His email to faculty noted that ProctorU appears to have no ProProctors on the weekends. The 250 percent time accommodation requires a live ProProctor; the absence of one means the accommodation could not be delivered as approved on a Saturday.

Evidence. ProctorU chat screenshot (3:25 to 3:27 PM, June 13, 2026): Gedela T. introduces herself as proctor; the reporting student asks if she is a ProProctor; she says "Just a moment please"; the ProctorU screen shows "Setup Complete! Exam will Begin Once Connected to Proctor," average wait five minutes, then shifting to "Wait time is longer than expected," eight minutes. Email from the reporting student (approx. 3:39 PM, June 13, 2026): "It appears they have no proproctors on the weekends."

Reported statement.

Are you a pro proctor? I am supposed to connect with one of them for my exam I was told. [Gedela T.:] Just a moment please. [Email:] It appears they have no proproctors on the weekends.

Standards. ADA Title III, examinations (42 U.S.C. §12189; 28 C.F.R. §36.309); Section 504 (29 U.S.C. §794); 34 C.F.R. §668.14 (the institution is responsible for its testing vendor). A 250 percent ProProctor accommodation that cannot be delivered on a Saturday because no ProProctor is available is an accommodation-delivery failure. Lead: HU-167.

Impact. The ProProctor is an approved accommodation component; its unavailability on Saturdays means the student cannot take his exams with his full accommodation on the days his clinical schedule forces him to test.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-167 (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party screenshots and email. Documented 2026-06-13.

HU-167c: ProProctor unavailability on weekends effectively narrows the reporting student's accommodation-based testing window relative to peers

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED
Issue type	Effective Testing Window Narrower Than Peers Due to ProProctor Unavailability on Only Available Testing Days	Date added	2026-06-13
Owner	Herzing Testing and Accommodations / ProctorU Inc. d/b/a Meazure Learning / Herzing Academic Affairs

Finding. The reporting student raised in his June 13, 2026 email that his Thursday and Friday clinical schedule leaves only Saturday and Sunday as available testing days, and that if ProProctor is unavailable on weekends, he effectively has a narrower testing window than peers who do not require a ProProctor. The ProProctor is an accommodation component approved because of his disability; if it is structurally unavailable on the only days his clinical obligations allow, the net effect is that his disability accommodation reduces rather than equalizes his access to the full testing window.

Evidence. Email from the reporting student (approx. 3:39 PM, June 13, 2026): "I should have the full exam window like my peers so I can study throughout the week and due to clinicals on Thursdays and Fridays that only leaves Saturday and Sunday. ... The proproctor is supposed to be part of the approved accommodations and I don't see why I'd have a smaller testing window then my peers due to a disability."

Reported statement.

I should have the full exam window like my peers so I can study throughout the week and due to clinicals on Thursdays and Fridays that only leaves Saturday and Sunday. ... The proproctor is supposed to be part of the approved accommodations and I don't see why I'd have a smaller testing window then my peers due to a disability.

Standards. ADA Title III, examinations (42 U.S.C. §12189; 28 C.F.R. §36.309); Section 504 (29 U.S.C. §794; 34 C.F.R. §104.44): academic adjustments must not have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability; 34 C.F.R. §668.14 (institutional responsibility for vendor). An accommodation design that, combined with an approved clinical schedule, produces a structurally narrower testing window than non-accommodated peers is an inequitable-access concern and a potential Section 504 violation. Lead: HU-167.

Impact. If ProProctor is unavailable on weekends, the reporting student has no days within a standard week on which he can both meet his clinical obligations and exercise his approved accommodation, giving him a de facto shorter testing window than peers without disabilities.

Notes. Sub-issue of HU-167 (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party email. The clinical scheduling constraint is documented in HU-135. Documented 2026-06-13.

HU-184: Herzing's Intensive Location Exception Request process treated a disability-related location accommodation as a discretionary, case-by-case request

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	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.

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.

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-183 (the related Intensive II registration process issue arising from this same registration cycle).

HU-186: The click gesture the reporting student uses to trigger text-to-speech read aloud now opens a dictionary panel instead

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED as to the software behavior, which was demonstrated on the call and acknowledged by the Elsevier representative; the risk of an actual academic integrity flag arising from it is prospective and has not yet occurred
Issue type	Accommodation Gesture Triggers Prohibited Resource Display, Creating False Academic Integrity Flag Exposure	Date added	2026-08-04
Owner	Elsevier / HESI product and technology teams; ProctorU (Meazure Learning); Emilie Thompson (ADA and Title IX Coordinator); Herzing academic leadership

Finding. The reporting student stated on the August 4, 2026 call that the method he has used throughout the program to trigger read-aloud of examination text is to hover over and click the text. He demonstrated that within the current secure browser this gesture no longer triggers read-aloud and instead opens a macOS dictionary and thesaurus panel displaying the definition of the selected term, with an option to open full Wikipedia content. The reporting student identified the consequence directly on the call: if he performs his ordinary accommodation gesture and a dictionary panel appears on screen, a ProctorU proctor observing the session may flag the session for accessing unauthorized resources, after which the reporting student would bear the burden of a grade appeal to establish that he was attempting to use an approved accommodation rather than attempting to cheat. He characterized that as a materially harder appeal to win because the on-screen behavior superficially resembles misconduct. The Elsevier representative stated that the text-to-speech function should play and that he was not aware of this behavior, and escalated it together with the dictionary defect documented in HU-185.

Evidence. Recorded call and transcript, August 4, 2026: the reporting student's description of his established read-aloud method, his live demonstration that the gesture produces a dictionary panel rather than audio, his statement of the resulting academic integrity exposure, and the Elsevier representative's acknowledgment that the text-to-speech function should be functioning and that he was unaware of the dictionary behavior. (Source Group: recorded video call, August 4, 2026, between the reporting student, a representative of Elsevier/HESI who stated he also works with the Meazure Learning side, and Dr. Danielle Laban, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, who joined near the end of the call; transcript provided by the reporting student. Speaker attribution in the automated transcript is inconsistent and the same speaker is labeled variously; the substance is clear but individual lines should be attributed by reference to the underlying recording rather than to transcript speaker labels.)

Reported statement.

If I go to click on something and have it read it to me, and it opens a dictionary instead of reading it to me, then ProctorU flags me for cheating. They shut down my exam in the middle of exam. Well, I didn't mean to. I was trying to have it read it back to me.

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., together with 34 C.F.R. §104.44 (academic adjustments), require that approved accommodations be usable in practice and not merely nominally available. A configuration in which the act of invoking an accommodation produces conduct that the institution's own integrity controls treat as suspicious places a disability-related burden on the student that non-disabled students do not bear. Whether text-to-speech read-aloud is documented as an approved accommodation in the reporting student's June 2026 accommodation letter remains an open item, as noted in HU-175, and should be confirmed before this entry is relied upon as an accommodation violation rather than a software defect.

Impact. The reporting student faces a choice between forgoing an accommodation he relies on for chart-heavy and split-screen items, or using it and risking an integrity flag he would then have to disprove through the appeals process. Given the volume of grade appeals already documented in this tracker arising from vendor-caused disruptions, an additional appeal predicated on an apparent integrity violation would be substantially more difficult and more consequential than the appeals filed to date.

Notes. It is recommended that written confirmation be requested from Herzing that no academic integrity finding will be initiated against the reporting student arising from a dictionary panel appearing during an examination while this defect remains unresolved, and that Emilie Thompson confirm whether text-to-speech read-aloud is documented as an approved accommodation. Cross-References: HU-185 (the underlying dictionary and outside-resource defect), HU-175 (the accessibility failure cluster and the open question of what the June 2026 accommodation letter documents), HU-187 (cumulative examination scheduling pressure).

HU-189: Herzing failed to provide virtual simulation presentation slides at least 24 hours in advance as required by the reporting student's written accommodation letter

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED. Unlike most accommodation entries in this tracker, the underlying accommodation is expressly documented in writing in the February 3, 2026 accommodation letter, so no verification of the accommodation's existence is required
Issue type	Failure to Deliver an Expressly Documented Written Accommodation, Advance Provision of Synchronous Session Slides	Date added	2026-08-05
Owner	Heather Gregg (Clinical II faculty) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Jessica Tressler / Emilie Thompson (ADA and Title IX Coordinator) / Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs)

Finding. The reporting student's approved accommodations, as set out in writing by Emilie Thompson, ADA and Title IX Coordinator, on February 3, 2026, expressly include that the instructor should provide the PowerPoint slides for any synchronous session to the student at least 24 hours prior to that synchronous session. For the virtual simulation session scheduled for Wednesday, August 5, 2026 in NSG525 Clinical II, that accommodation was not delivered. On August 4, 2026 at 10:02 AM, Heather Gregg wrote that she had been asked to provide review materials, but stated that she did not have access to the PowerPoint presentations that would be used during the session, and instead supplied her own topical presentations on Schizophrenia, PTSD, and ADHD together with Nursing Leadership materials provided by Dr. Prashad. She further noted uncertainty as to the session content itself, stating that Wednesday's topics were to include Schizophrenia, Nursing Leadership, and PTSD, but that PTSD may have already been covered on Day 2 and might be replaced by ADHD, so she was providing materials for both possibilities. The reporting student replied the same morning asking how to obtain the actual case studies, noting he had received them the prior week from Jessica Tressler, and explaining that they are very hard to read because they are very small on the screen and because he is unable to move back and forth between slides. At 9:09 PM that evening, roughly the eve of the session, the reporting student emailed six Herzing recipients stating he still had not received the slides, that he could not complete the associated assignment because he was struggling to read them on the small screen share, that the screen share is not compatible with his screen reader or zoom features because it is pixelated, and that his accommodation requires the materials at least 24 hours in advance, which had not occurred. At 9:17 PM he sent a parallel Microsoft Teams message to Dr. Prashad, Emilie Thompson, Dr. Laban, and Dr. Black, in which he stated he understood the university wished to keep the virtual simulation slideshows confidential, disclaimed any intention of sharing or publicizing them, and asked the university to confirm that it intended to comply with his accommodations as written. In that message he also stated that he had received the materials the prior week only after pushback, that he is not receiving effective extended time because the professor advances to the next slide before he has finished reading, and that he has the right to use a screen reader and to print the materials. The reporting student has separately described the institution's stated rationale as a desire to keep copyrighted or proprietary simulation material from being released, while nonetheless displaying that same material to students on a screen share he cannot magnify or process with assistive technology.

Evidence. Accommodation letter, Emilie Thompson, February 3, 2026, subject "Academic Accommodations Updated," addressed to faculty and copied to the reporting student, Dr. Prashad, and Dr. Laban, stating among the approved accommodations that the instructor should provide the PowerPoint slides for any synchronous session to the student at least 24 hours prior to any synchronous session, and separately that the instructor should record and transcribe any live or synchronous learning session and provide a copy to the student. Email, Heather Gregg, August 4, 2026, 10:02 AM: statement that she did not have access to the PowerPoint presentations to be used during the session, provision of substitute topical materials, and description of unresolved uncertainty as to whether the session would cover PTSD or ADHD. Email, the reporting student, August 4, 2026, 10:15 AM: request for the actual case studies and description of difficulty reading them at small size and inability to move between slides. Email, the reporting student, August 4, 2026, 9:09 PM, subject "Sims": statement that the slides had still not been received, that the screen share is pixelated and not compatible with his screen reader or zoom, that he requires a hard copy to complete the assignment, and that his accommodation requires provision at least 24 hours in advance. Microsoft Teams message, the reporting student, August 4, 2026, 9:17 PM: acknowledgment of the university's confidentiality interest, disclaimer of any intent to share the material, statement that he received materials the prior week only after pushback, statement that he is not receiving effective extended time because the presenter advances slides before he finishes, and request for written confirmation of intent to comply. (Source Group: email, Heather Gregg to the reporting student, cc Jessica Tressler and Dr. Raywattie Prashad, August 4, 2026, 10:02 AM Central, subject "Supplemental Materials for Sim Day"; the reporting student's reply, August 4, 2026, 10:15 AM Central; the reporting student's email, August 4, 2026, 9:09 PM Central, subject "Sims," to Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, Heather Gregg, the ADA office, Emilie Thompson, and David Steele; Microsoft Teams group chat message from the reporting student, August 4, 2026, 9:17 PM, to Dr. Prashad, Emilie Thompson, Dr. Laban, and Dr. Stephanie Black; and the governing accommodation letter, Emilie Thompson, ADA and Title IX Coordinator, February 3, 2026, subject "Academic Accommodations Updated.")

Reported statement.

[Accommodation letter, Feb 3, 2026:] Instructor should provide the powerpoint slides for any synchronous session to the student at least 24 hours prior to any synchronous session. [The reporting student, Aug 4, 2026:] I still have not received the respective slides for the assignment for tomorrow. That is not compliant with my accessibility features such as the screen reader or the zoom feature because it is pixelated. [Heather Gregg, Aug 4, 2026:] I do not have access to the PowerPoint presentations that will be used during the session.

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., together with 34 C.F.R. §104.44 (academic adjustments), require that approved academic adjustments actually be delivered. This entry is materially stronger than most accommodation entries in this tracker because the specific accommodation is expressly stated in Herzing's own February 3, 2026 accommodation letter in mandatory terms, so the question is one of delivery rather than of whether the accommodation exists or was approved. A stated institutional interest in protecting proprietary or copyrighted instructional material is not, without more, a defense to non-delivery, particularly where the same material is displayed to the student in a format he cannot access; the ordinary course would be to provide the material subject to confidentiality conditions, which the reporting student has stated he would accept. Whether Herzing in fact asserted a copyright or confidentiality rationale in writing, as opposed to the reporting student's account of what he was told, has not been confirmed from a Herzing-authored document in this entry and should be verified. The related accommodation in the same letter that the instructor record and transcribe any live or synchronous session and provide a copy to the student is also potentially engaged and should be checked for compliance.

Impact. The reporting student faced a graded virtual simulation session and an associated assignment on August 5, 2026 without access, in any usable format, to the presentation materials the assignment is based upon. He states he cannot read the material as displayed and cannot apply his screen reader or magnification to a pixelated screen share, and that the presenter advances slides before he has finished, which negates the practical benefit of extended time. Faculty were themselves uncertain what topics the session would cover, so the substitute materials provided may not correspond to the session content. This occurs in the same week as the compressed examination schedule documented in HU-187, compounding the cumulative academic risk.

Notes. IMPORTANT COLLATERAL FINDING: the February 3, 2026 accommodation letter located in connection with this entry expressly documents 250 percent time on timed testing, a 72-hour assignment extension on request, advance provision of synchronous session slides, and recording and transcription of synchronous sessions. It does NOT, on its face, enumerate screen magnification or text-to-speech read-aloud as named accommodations. That bears directly on the open item flagged in HU-175 and in both pending OCR complaints, and should be reconciled before those filings are relied upon; there may be a later or supplemental accommodation letter, and the reporting student should be asked whether one exists. It is recommended that written confirmation be requested of whether Herzing asserts a copyright or confidentiality basis for withholding the simulation slides, and if so, why provision under a confidentiality condition is not workable given the reporting student's stated willingness to accept one. It is also recommended that the recordings and transcripts of the synchronous sessions, which the same accommodation letter requires, be requested. Cross-References: HU-187 (compressed examination schedule in the same period), HU-175 (accessibility failure cluster and the open question, now partly answered by the February 3, 2026 accommodation letter, of what accommodations are formally documented), HU-186 (accommodation gesture and integrity exposure), and the earlier tracker entries documenting clinical and simulation scheduling instability in NSG525 Clinical II.

HU-192: Dr. Raywattie Prashad told the reporting student he could access required virtual clinical materials only through course postings rather than receiving them directly

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED. The entire exchange is documented in the parties' own written emails
Issue type	Denial of Direct Provision of a Documented Accommodation; Confidentiality and Accreditation Rationale Offered in Lieu of Compliance; Escalation to Associate Vice President Pending	Date added	2026-08-05
Owner	Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Jessica Tressler / Dr. Sarah Bell / Heather Gregg / Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs)

Finding. On July 29, 2026 at 8:31 AM, the reporting student emailed Dr. Tressler, Heather Gregg, and Dr. Bell, copying Dr. Prashad, Dr. Laban, the ADA office, Emilie Thompson, and David Steele, stating that he is supposed to receive the slideshow 24 hours in advance of his virtual clinical in accordance with his accommodations, that he had not received them, that it was vital given how small the screen is, and that he was also supposed to receive a recording and transcript of the prior week's session, which did not happen. Dr. Tressler responded within the thread providing that week's slideshow, stating she would send the prior week's slides as a resource during a break, asking Dr. Bell to provide the recording and transcript, and instructing that the materials not be shared with other students for confidentiality purposes. Dr. Prashad then wrote directly to the reporting student, stating that the relevant materials had been in NSG523 and NSG524 since the start of the course, that NSG525 Clinical II is the application of that material, and that the reporting student should locate the recordings and slides already posted in those other courses, including materials prepared as part of the Sherpath suite, rather than being sent the virtual clinical materials directly. She stated that the specific virtual clinical patient scenarios are treated the same as protected patient data in an in-person clinical and would not be shared, including the recordings, and separately explained that she had personally provided make-up materials to the reporting student the prior semester only because the scenarios used that day were being retired and he was the only student doing a make-up session with her. The reporting student replied that he had learned disability services had not communicated his accommodations to Dr. Bell, which he stated was why he had not received the materials previously, and asked that this be handled more proactively going forward, noting it had been a struggle to complete the prior week's assignment without them. Dr. Prashad followed up stating she had sent a further email and asking that the materials not be shared until new patient scenarios could be created, citing a need to create authentic experiences for each virtual clinical to meet accreditation standards. The reporting student's final message in the thread, sent while on a work break, confirmed he had the weekly slides and the V-Sim slide but stated this did not resolve the underlying accommodation issue: he quoted his written accommodation directly, that the instructor should provide PowerPoint slides for any synchronous session at least 24 hours prior and should record and transcribe any live or synchronous session, stated the V-Sim is a synchronous session, and explained that unlike an in-person clinical where he can zoom, pause, and return to a physical chart as long as needed, a virtual simulation displayed only as a small, time-limited screen share does not allow him to read the material in time before the presenter advances, and that being able to zoom and use a screen reader would be a reasonable accommodation already built into most electronic health record systems used at his workplace. He stated he was not going to share the materials with others but needed them properly accommodated. Separately, on August 5, 2026, in an unrelated thread concerning exam scheduling, Dr. Danielle Laban wrote to the reporting student: "I am working with Dr. Prashad to determine what happened with the materials." This is the first written confirmation from Herzing leadership above the Program Chair level that the materials issue is being reviewed, though as of the date this entry was added no further written update, resolution, or documented outcome of that review has been provided to the reporting student. UPDATE: the reporting student did not participate in the most recent virtual clinical day because he did not have the documentation, the required advance materials described above, needed to take part.

Evidence. Email, the reporting student to Jessica Tressler, Heather Gregg, and Sarah Bell, cc Raywattie Prashad, Danielle Laban, ADA, Emilie Thompson, and David Steele, subject "Slides/Accommodations," July 29, 2026, 8:31 AM. Email, Jessica Tressler, same thread, July 29, 2026, 8:37 AM (providing partial materials, instructing confidentiality, requesting the recording and transcript from Sarah Bell). Email, Raywattie Prashad, same thread, July 29, 2026, 10:12 AM (directing the reporting student to locate materials in NSG523 and NSG524, describing virtual clinical scenarios as protected patient data, referencing a prior-semester exception tied to retiring scenarios). Email, the reporting student, same thread, July 29, 2026, 10:26 AM (learned ADA had not communicated accommodations to Dr. Bell). Email, Raywattie Prashad, same thread, July 29, 2026, 10:26 AM (citing accreditation authenticity requirements and asking the materials not be shared until new scenarios are created). Email, the reporting student, same thread, July 29, 2026, 10:35 AM (quoting the written accommodation verbatim, explaining the V-Sim is a synchronous session, describing the small screen and advancing-slide problem, and the reasonable-accommodation comparison to workplace EHR zoom and screen reader functionality). Email, Danielle Laban to the reporting student, subject "Re: [EXTERNAL]," August 5, 2026, 11:19 AM ("I am working with Dr. Prashad to determine what happened with the materials"). (Source Group: email thread, subject "Slides/Accommodations," between the reporting student, Dr. Jessica Tressler, Heather Gregg, Dr. Sarah Bell, and Dr. Raywattie Prashad, cc Dr. Danielle Laban, ADA, Emilie Thompson, and David Steele, July 29, 2026, 8:31 AM through 10:35 AM Central; and email thread, subject "Re: [EXTERNAL]," between the reporting student and Dr. Danielle Laban, August 4 through August 5, 2026, specifically Dr. Laban's message of August 5, 2026, 11:19 AM Central.)

Reported statement.

The accommodation reads "Instructor should provide the powerpoint slides for any synchronous session to the student at least 24 hours prior to any synchronous session... The VSim is a synchronous session." [Dr. Prashad, Jul 29, 2026:] For us to meet accreditation standards we have to create authentic experiences for each virtual clinical so please do not share these until we are able to create new patient scenarios for this content. [Dr. Laban, Aug 5, 2026:] I'm working with Dr. Prashad to determine what happened with the materials.

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., together with 34 C.F.R. §104.44 (academic adjustments), require that an approved accommodation be delivered as written rather than substituted with a different arrangement the institution finds more convenient. Directing a student to locate substitute materials in other, related courses does not satisfy a written requirement that the instructor provide the specific synchronous session materials to the student at least 24 hours in advance, particularly where, as here, the student and faculty member (Heather Gregg, per HU-189) were both uncertain the substitute materials matched the session content. An institutional interest in accreditation authenticity and protection of retiring patient simulation scenarios, comparable in Dr. Prashad's framing to protected patient data, is a legitimate institutional interest, but is not on its face a stated exception to a written ADA and Section 504 accommodation, and the record does not reflect that Herzing offered an alternative compliant means of providing the accommodation, such as timed or supervised access, a confidentiality agreement, or redacted materials, before declining to provide the slides directly. This entry should be read together with HU-189, which documents the same underlying accommodation and its failure for the August 5, 2026 session; this entry documents the preceding written exchange in which the institution's rationale for withholding the materials was first stated by Dr. Prashad and is now under review by Dr. Laban.

Impact. The reporting student was required, across at least two consecutive virtual clinical sessions, to complete graded work based on materials he states he could not read in the format and timeframe provided, notwithstanding a specific, written 24-hour advance provision requirement. The stated rationale, that disability services had not communicated his accommodations to Dr. Bell, is itself a separate internal communication failure layered on top of the substantive dispute over whether Dr. Prashad's proposed alternative, locating materials in other courses, satisfies the letter's terms at all. The matter is now under review at the Associate Vice President level as of August 5, 2026, which is a positive development, but no written resolution, corrective process, or confirmation that future sessions will comply with the 24-hour requirement has been documented as of this entry. This is not a hypothetical risk: the reporting student has already missed a scheduled virtual clinical day because he lacked the required documentation, a direct, concrete instance of the harm this entry describes rather than a projected one.

Notes. It is recommended that a written, dated resolution be requested from Dr. Laban once her review with Dr. Prashad concludes, specifically confirming: whether the 24-hour advance slide requirement will be met directly for all future virtual clinical sessions, whether the recording and transcript requirement is being met, and what caused the disability services communication failure to Dr. Bell referenced by the reporting student on July 29, 2026. This entry should be updated once that resolution is received. Cross-References: HU-189 (the August 5, 2026 virtual simulation session for which the required materials were not provided, and the February 3, 2026 accommodation letter establishing the 24-hour advance slide requirement), HU-187 (the same period's compressed examination schedule), and the broader pattern in this tracker of accommodation requirements being met with institutional-convenience-based alternatives rather than direct compliance.

HU-193: Herzing directed the reporting student to sign up for a 6-hour make-up clinical shift to cover 3 missed V-Sim hours

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED. The exchange is documented in the parties' own written emails
Issue type	Open Ended Make Up Hours Requirement Tied to a Disability Accommodation; Uncredited Hours Risk; Inconsistent Instructions	Date added	2026-08-10
Owner	Heather Gregg (Clinical II faculty) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Dr. Rachel Powell (Director of Clinical Placement and Compliance)

Finding. Heather Gregg emailed the reporting student stating that Dr. Prashad had confirmed she could send him a link to sign up for additional clinical hours to supplement three missed V-Sim hours, that he should register for a six-hour shift but attend for three hours, and that Dr. Prashad would discuss further details at an already scheduled meeting. Approximately two hours later, Dr. Gregg sent a correction stating she had misread Dr. Prashad's note, which actually said the reporting student may have to stay longer than three hours depending on the case, and apologized for the confusion. The reporting student responded that he would do his best to finish in three hours, since that is the number of hours he actually needs, but stated he would be unable to stay late unless he received credit for every hour attended, and that he is not required to attend hours beyond what the term requires. He explained that while students are traditionally asked to stay late at clinicals even after completing their hours, his situation differs because the extra hours exist specifically due to a disability accommodation, and that disability accommodations cannot create additional burdens on the student who requested them. He proposed that if he exceeded the required hours for the semester, the excess should be credited toward the following semester, and offered an alternative of ending his last clinical week three hours early instead, noting that would require coordination with Dr. Rachel Powell. Dr. Prashad responded that the make-up would remain within his accommodations because virtual patient care does not end at a fixed time, so the session could run under or over three hours, and that if it ran long he would still finish before 2 PM with built-in breaks. The reporting student replied that this response did not address his core point: that unlike every other student, who attended a fixed start and end time with no possibility of running over, he alone faced an open-ended time commitment specifically because he required a disability accommodation, and that any hours beyond the required total needed to be documented and credited toward his 585-hour program requirement rather than treated as an unpaid extension of his obligation. He stated that requiring him to potentially work additional undocumented hours, when no other student who attended the original session had that open-ended requirement, itself constitutes an additional burden imposed because he sought an accommodation. He reiterated in a follow-up message that he was willing to stay late but only if every hour was documented toward his required total, comparing an uncredited extension to being asked to work without being credited or paid for it.

Evidence. Email, Heather Gregg to the reporting student, August 3, 2026 (register for a six-hour shift, attend for three hours, per Dr. Prashad). Email, Heather Gregg, August 4, 2026, 10:50 AM (correction: Dr. Prashad's note said the reporting student may have to stay longer than three hours). Email, the reporting student, August 4, 2026 (objection that he will attend three hours, is not required to attend more, and that any additional time must be credited toward his 585-hour total; proposal to instead end his final clinical week three hours early). Email, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, August 4, 2026 (response that virtual patient care does not end at a fixed time and that accommodations will still be met if the session runs past three hours). Email, the reporting student, August 4, 2026 (reply that no other student who attended the original session faced an open-ended time commitment, that this open-endedness is itself a burden tied to his accommodation, and that any additional hours must be documented and credited toward his required total). Follow-up email, the reporting student, same date (restating willingness to stay late conditioned on every hour being credited). (Source Group: email thread, subject "V-Sim Make Up," between Heather Gregg, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, and the reporting student, cc ADA, Dr. Danielle Laban, David Steele, Emilie Thompson, and Dr. Rachel Powell, August 3 through August 4, 2026.)

Reported statement.

Disability accommodations cannot lead to extra burdens on a student. Meaning I can't be assigned extra hours simply because I requested the disability accommodations... No other students who attended the vsim days had extra time they were required to stay late, I know this because I have been in contact with my friends. This would be a requirement that is added to me specifically because I requested accommodations.

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., together with 34 C.F.R. §104.44 (academic adjustments), prohibit an institution from imposing requirements on a student because of an accommodation that are not imposed on other students. The reporting student's legal theory, that an open-ended, potentially uncredited time commitment tied specifically to a disability-related make-up session is itself a disability-based burden, is a substantive and well-framed accommodation argument that should be evaluated on its own terms rather than folded into the general make-up scheduling process. Compare against the Prelicensure Student Handbook's clinical hour and make-up provisions and against Herzing's policy, referenced elsewhere in this tracker, that clinical hours be accurately logged and credited; whether hours attended beyond a stated make-up requirement are in fact credited toward the reporting student's 585-hour total, or toward a future semester as he proposed, has not been confirmed in writing by Herzing in the material reviewed.

Impact. If the reporting student's make-up session runs beyond three hours without those additional hours being credited toward his required total, he will have performed clinical work without corresponding academic credit, a burden the record does not show was imposed on any other student who attended the original V-Sim session on a fixed schedule. The dispute also reflects a communication reliability problem: Dr. Gregg's initial instruction was itself incorrect and required a same-day correction, adding uncertainty to an already accommodation-sensitive scheduling matter.

Notes. It is recommended that the reporting student obtain written confirmation from Dr. Prashad or Dr. Powell, before the August 22, 2026 make-up session, of exactly how any hours beyond three will be credited, whether toward his current 585-hour total or a future semester as he proposed, so the matter is resolved in writing before the session occurs rather than disputed afterward. Cross-References: HU-189 and HU-192 (the underlying missed V-Sim materials and session giving rise to this make-up requirement), the existing HU-135 cluster (eight-hour clinical shift accommodation and hour-count disputes in the same course), and HU-191 (the separate one-hour clinical shortfall and undocumented verbal assurance pattern, illustrating a recurring concern about clinical hours not being reliably documented in writing).

HU-197: During a severe asthma flare-up in September 2026, Herzing offered a one-time testing courtesy rather than a disability accommodation

Severity	Critical	Status	CONFIRMED as to the full email exchange and its content; the reporting student's characterization of the university's conduct as disability discrimination and retaliation is his own stated legal position, presented here as stated rather than as an adjudicated finding
Issue type	Accommodation Request Characterized as a Discretionary Courtesy Rather Than an ADA Accommodation; Incomplete Grade Policy Deadline Applied During Acute Illness; Retaliation Concern Raised by Student; Resignation from Elected Office	Date added	2026-09-13
Owner	Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) / Herzing's ADA office

Finding. On September 4, 2026, the reporting student notified Dr. Laban and Dr. Prashad that he needed to cancel two scheduled exams due to multiple asthma attacks in the preceding 24 hours, that his doctor had started him on a steroid that could take up to five days to take effect, and he attached supporting medical documentation. Dr. Laban responded the same day that she would work with the team to reschedule the exams in ProctorU once he was ready. On September 8, 2026, the reporting student provided an update that he had also developed a severe asthma flare-up following a cold, was using his inhaler and nebulizer daily, and asked to be dropped from an optional Scholarly Practice course to push it to a future semester given the need to make up his remaining final exams; he copied his instructors on his health update. On September 9, 2026, still recovering, moving apartments that week, and scheduled to present to new student orientation, the reporting student proposed taking his two remaining exams the following Thursday and Saturday, and asked that ProctorU be told he might have moving boxes in his testing space. Dr. Prashad responded that grades needed to be entered by the following Friday given that this involved an Incomplete, and recommended the exams be taken earlier in the week, stating this was not intended to discount his illness. The reporting student replied that he works during the week, that these were the first available days he had, that he did not think it fair to be rushed while recovering from technical issues Herzing had caused with four of his exams over the prior two classes, and that asthma is a documented disability; he questioned whether a proctor would object to him being close to the screen while also not permitting a nebulizer. On September 11, 2026, Dr. Laban responded that Herzing would add a one-time note to his ProctorU account permitting moving boxes in his testing environment and use of his prescribed inhaled asthma medication during testing, but stated explicitly that this was a one-time courtesy and not considered an ADA accommodation, and that any accommodation would need to go through the university's formal ADA process. She then explained that under Herzing's Incomplete Grade Policy, because NSG 523 and NSG 524 are both prerequisites for all three of his fall semester courses, he had two options: complete the outstanding exams by Friday, September 18, 2026, or request an extension, which would place him on an Approved Break until the incomplete was resolved, delaying his return to coursework requiring those prerequisites until the spring term. The reporting student responded that he would proceed with the proposed Thursday and Friday schedule under protest, stated he would file a third complaint with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, and stated he was bcc'ing the Department of Education on that email. He stated the university had documented his asthma as a disability since August 2025, that he could barely breathe and had been unable to get out of bed from coughing, that he had only asked for a 24-hour extension, and that he had confirmed asthma is a covered disability under the ADA. He stated he would use his nebulizer during testing and would set up a separate camera recording the room in case the proctor raised any objection. In the same email, the reporting student told Dr. Prashad he would not present to new student orientation that day and resigned his position as President of the Student Nursing Association, stating he did not believe he could freely speak his mind while serving in a leadership role and intended to remain a member and continue serving at the national level.

Evidence. Email, the reporting student, September 4, 2026, subject "Sick," with attached medical documentation. Email, Dr. Laban, same date: agreement to reschedule the exams in ProctorU. Email, the reporting student, September 8, 2026, subject "Update": description of the asthma flare-up, daily inhaler and nebulizer use, and request to drop the optional Scholarly Practice course. Email, the reporting student, September 9, 2026, subject "Exams": proposed Thursday/Saturday exam schedule and request to document possible moving boxes. Email, Dr. Prashad, September 9, 2026: recommendation to take exams earlier in the week given the Friday grade-entry deadline, with a statement that this did not discount his illness. Email, the reporting student, September 9, 2026: description of his work schedule, the technical issues affecting four prior exams, and reference to asthma as a documented disability. Email, Dr. Laban, September 11, 2026: the one-time courtesy regarding moving boxes and inhaled medication, express statement that this is not an ADA accommodation, a citation to Herzing's disability services page, a citation to the Incomplete Grade Policy in the online catalog, and the two stated options, complete by September 18, 2026 or take an Approved Break until spring. Email, the reporting student, September 11, 2026: agreement to the Thursday/Friday schedule under protest, statement of intent to file a third OCR complaint with a bcc to the Department of Education, his account of the severity of his symptoms, his position that the university failed to engage in required interactive collaboration, his plan to use a nebulizer and a second recording camera during testing, and his resignation as Student Nursing Association President. (Source Group: email, the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban and Dr. Raywattie Prashad, subject "Sick," September 4, 2026; email, the reporting student to Dr. Laban, Emilie Thompson, ADA, cc Dr. Prashad and others, subject "Update," September 8, 2026; email thread, subject "Exams," between the reporting student, Dr. Laban, and Dr. Prashad, cc ADA and Emilie Thompson, September 9 through 11, 2026.)

Reported statement.

Please note this is a one time courtesy, and is not considered an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Any accommodation to that extent will need to be requested and reviewed through the University's formal ADA accommodation process. [Dr. Laban, Sep 11, 2026] ... Please take notice that I will be submitting this to the Department of Education for a third Office of Civil Rights complaint given the fact that the university is forcing me to take two exams in one week when you know that I am sick due to a disability that I have documented with the university since August of 2025. [The reporting student, Sep 11, 2026]

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., together with 34 C.F.R. §104.44 (academic adjustments), require an interactive process and individualized consideration when a student raises a disability-related barrier, rather than resolution solely through a general institutional policy deadline. Herzing's own framing draws a sharp line between the informal testing accommodations it granted, which it expressly stated were not ADA accommodations, and the formal ADA process it directed the reporting student to use instead; whether that formal process was engaged during this acute episode, given the compressed timeline, is not established in this entry and should be confirmed. Asthma is a recognized disability under the ADA when it substantially limits a major life activity such as breathing, consistent with the reporting student's own cited understanding. The ADA's anti-retaliation provision, 42 U.S.C. §12203, is potentially implicated by the reporting student's own characterization of the university's posture as retaliatory; that characterization is his stated position and is not independently verified in this entry. His resignation from an elected student leadership role, citing an inability to freely speak his mind while serving in that capacity, is documented as his stated reason and should be read as evidence of the effect these events had on him, not as an institutional action taken against him.

Impact. The reporting student faced a choice between testing while acutely ill, by his account barely able to breathe and unable to get out of bed, or accepting an Approved Break that would delay his return to required coursework until the spring term, given that NSG 523 and NSG 524 are prerequisites for his entire fall course load. This is a materially different and higher-stakes consequence than the grade appeals and rescheduling disputes documented elsewhere in this tracker, because the standard institutional remedy for an unresolved Incomplete, an Approved Break, itself operates as a significant academic and financial aid consequence for a student citing an acute disability-related barrier. The reporting student's resignation from the Student Nursing Association presidency is a direct, documented personal and professional consequence of this dispute.

Notes. IMPORTANT: this entry references a stated third OCR complaint. The two OCR complaints already drafted in this project cover the ProctorU/Elsevier testing accommodation failures and the Fall 2026 Intensive II location dispute; this asthma-related episode is a third, distinct factual basis and would need its own complaint or a supplemental filing rather than being folded into the existing two. It is recommended that the reporting student confirm whether this third complaint was in fact filed, and if so, that the same OCR Electronic Complaint Submission confirmation documentation used for the first two be obtained. It is also recommended that written confirmation of the outcome of the September 11 through 18, 2026 exam window be requested, and whether the Incomplete was resolved within the standard policy timeframe or whether an Approved Break was ultimately taken. Given the June 22, 2026 reference to an updated psychological evaluation prepared for an OCR investigator, a separate entry or review may be warranted to determine whether that evaluation and this asthma-related episode should be cross-referenced in any future filing. Cross-References: HU-175 and HU-195 (the ongoing, unresolved zoom and text reader accessibility failure the reporting student cites as the underlying cause of his compressed exam schedule; his September 9, 2026 email states the issue still does not work), HU-187 and HU-192 (the same compressed scheduling and materials-access pattern from August 2026), the June 22, 2026 correspondence in which the reporting student informed Dr. Laban of an updated psychological evaluation obtained in anticipation of an OCR investigator's request, which should be reviewed and reconciled with this entry and with the two already drafted OCR complaints.

HU-198: The reporting student informed Herzing that a Department of Education investigator had requested updated psychological evaluation documentation, and that his updated diagnosis newly includes Autism Spectrum Disorder

Severity	High	Status	CONFIRMED as to the content and transmission of this email; the underlying claim that an OCR investigator requested the evaluation, and the content of the attached evaluation report itself, have not been independently reviewed in this entry
Issue type	Active OCR Investigation Involvement; Updated Disability Diagnosis Disclosed; Additional Complaint Under Consideration	Date added	2026-09-13
Owner	Dr. Danielle Laban (Associate Vice President, Student Affairs); U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (investigator identity not stated in this email)

Finding. On June 22, 2026, the reporting student informed Dr. Laban, copying Herzing's ADA office, Emilie Thompson, David Steele, and Dr. Nicole Franklin, that he had obtained an updated psychological evaluation on June 19, 2026, stating this was done in anticipation of a request from an investigator on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education. He stated his updated diagnosis now includes Autism Spectrum Disorder and attached the evaluation report. In the same email, he stated he was considering filing an additional OCR complaint, citing a 180-day filing requirement, that morning's exam issue, anxiety caused by a lack of accommodations on his first exams, denial of an accommodation request on a retake, and a failure to promptly provide an exam link, and stated this had not been resolved in several weeks and continued as a result of the ProctorU issue. He asked whether the university wished to address the matter with him that day before he filed an additional complaint. This is the first indication in this tracker's records that a Department of Education investigator had directly engaged with the reporting student regarding his existing OCR complaints and requested updated documentation from him, and the first indication that his diagnostic profile has been updated to include Autism Spectrum Disorder since the diagnoses referenced in earlier entries in this tracker.

Evidence. Email, the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban, cc ADA, Emilie Thompson, David Steele, and Dr. Nicole Franklin, June 22, 2026, subject "Update," with attachment, the reporting student: statement that an updated psychological evaluation was completed June 19, 2026 in anticipation of an OCR investigator's request, statement that the updated diagnosis includes Autism Spectrum Disorder, and statement of intent to consider filing an additional OCR complaint based on that day's exam issue and a pattern of unresolved accommodation failures.

Reported statement.

As of 19 June 2026, I had an updated psychological evaluation done in anticipation of a request from the investigator on behalf of the Dept of Ed. My updated diagnosis includes Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Standards. This entry does not itself allege a Herzing policy violation; it documents the status of the reporting student's engagement with OCR's investigative process and a material update to his documented disability profile, both of which bear directly on the two OCR complaints already drafted in this project and on HU-197's stated intent to file a third. Section 504 and ADA analysis of any of the reporting student's accommodation requests should account for the full, current diagnostic picture, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, rather than only the diagnoses referenced in earlier entries in this tracker.

Impact. If an OCR investigator is in fact actively requesting documentation from the reporting student directly, this indicates his existing complaint or complaints have progressed to an investigative stage, which is significant given the OCR backlog concerns discussed elsewhere in this project's research. The updated Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis may be relevant to accommodation requests not previously framed in those terms, including the sensory and processing related aspects of the screen-based testing accommodation disputes documented throughout this tracker.

Notes. IMPORTANT: it is recommended that the reporting student be asked directly (1) whether an OCR investigator has in fact contacted him, and if so, which complaint or complaints that investigator is handling and what documentation has been requested or provided since; (2) whether the additional OCR complaint referenced in this June 22, 2026 email was ultimately filed, and if so, that the same confirmation records used for the two OCR complaints already documented in this project be obtained; (3) whether the attached evaluation report (the reporting student) should be reviewed and incorporated into this tracker's evidence base, since it was not reviewed in preparing this entry; and (4) whether the Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis should be reflected in the accommodation letter discrepancy already flagged in HU-175 and HU-189. This entry should be treated as a priority follow-up given its direct bearing on active federal proceedings. Cross-References: HU-175, HU-185, HU-186, HU-195, and HU-197 (the accommodation and testing disputes this evaluation update and potential complaint would relate to), and the two OCR complaint drafts already prepared in this project.

See also

• Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing
• Herzing Issues: Clinical Placement
• Herzing Issues: Clinical Intensives and Simulation
• Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process
• Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records
• Herzing University Issue Tracker