Andrew H.K. Wong v. The Regents of the University of California

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that evidence that the defendant had made the requested accommodation in the past 22 is persuasive evidence of reasonableness
• concluding that although Title II “uses the term ‘reasonable modification’ rather than ‘reasonable accommodation,’ these terms do not differ in the [legal] standards they create”
• explaining that the denial of a request for accommodation “without consulting [plaintiff] or any person at the University whose job it was to formulate appropriate accommodations” was “a conspicuous failure to carry out the obligation ‘conscientiously’ to explore possible accommodations”
• finding 8 plaintiff’s evidence he “received satisfactory grades and generally positive comments from his 9 evaluators” relevant to whether he could “meet the University’s eligibility requirements”
• referring to “failure to carry out the obligation ‘conscientiously’ to explore possible accommodations”
• applying reasonable accommodation 3 standard under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).