1The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2958

___________

Andrew Rosenthal, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Webster University; Richard Meyers, * Eastern District of Missouri

President of Webster University; Jeri *

Levesque; Ted Hoeff, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 * 

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: September 21, 2000

 Filed: September 25, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Rosenthal, a former student of Webster University, appeals from the

final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri,

denying him injunctive relief and granting summary judgment to defendants. Rosenthal

filed this action after he was suspended from the University for emotional and
-2-

behavioral problems, and was denied readmission. He claimed that defendants

discriminated against him because of his disability (bipolar disorder), in violation of the

Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796, and the Americans With Disabilities Act

(ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and that defendants violated the Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. For reversal, he

argues the district court erred in denying his motions for injunctive relief and sanctions,

and in granting summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the

judgment of the district court. 

Upon de novo review, see Winkle v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 195 F.3d 418,

420 (8th Cir. 1999), we conclude defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of

law because Rosenthal did not produce any valid evidence that defendants knew of his

bipolar disorder before they suspended him and set the conditions for his readmission.

Upon enrolling, Rosenthal informed a University employee that he suffered from

“unipolar disorder”; that he suffered from a variety of physical conditions affecting his

thinking and concentration, and might be depressed; and that he needed a separate,

quiet testing area and extra time on tests. The University was not informed that he was

bipolar until after he was suspended and had been charged with further conduct

disqualifying him for readmission. Cf. Crandall v. Paralyzed Veterans, 146 F.3d 894,

895, 897-98 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (even if employee’s rude behavior was symptom of his

bipolar disorder, employer was not liable under Rehabilitation Act when employee had

not disclosed his disability prior to being fired). 

The record, moreover, is quite clear that Rosenthal’s suspension was not based

upon his disability but upon his disorderly conduct--including, but not limited to,

carrying a gun and threatening to use it--and that he was denied readmission because

he violated the terms of readmission by being charged with harassment. Cf. Palmer v.

Circuit Court, 117 F.3d 351, 352 (7th Cir. 1997) (finding no evidence that employee

was fired because of her mental illness where she was fired for threatening to kill

another employee; if employee is fired for unacceptable behavior, fact that behavior
-3-

was precipitated by mental illness does not present ADA issue), cert. denied, 522 U.S.

1096 (1998). 

As to Rosenthal’s remaining arguments on appeal, there is no private cause of

action under FERPA, see Girardier v. Webster College, 563 F.2d 1267, 1276-77 (8th

Cir. 1977); we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of injunctive relief and

sanctions, see Pottgen v. Missouri State High Sch. Activities Ass’n, 40 F.3d 926, 929

(8th Cir. 1994) (injunctive relief); Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 201 F.3d 1058,

1059 (8th Cir. 2000) (sanctions); and we do not address Rosenthal’s new claim that

defendants defamed him by publishing information about him on campus, see

Alexander v. Pathfinder, Inc., 189 F.3d 735, 742 (8th Cir. 1999) ("we will not consider

arguments raised for the first time on appeal"). Last, we deny Rosenthal’s pending

motion to supplement the record. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.