United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-20462 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

Valerie Reiss, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Texas A&M University; Doctor John L. Junkins, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:21-CV-263 

______________________________ 

Before Jones, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

 Plaintiff-Appellant Valerie Reiss contends that Defendants-Appellees 

Texas A&M University and Mark Welsh III1

 (collectively “TAMU”) 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

1

 Reiss initially filed this lawsuit against Dr. John L. Junkins in his official capacity 

as interim president of Texas A&M University. On July 21, 2023, Welsh became the new 

interim president of Texas A&M University. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

25(d), Welsh has taken Dr. Junkins’s position as a defendant in this litigation. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 25(d) (“An action does not abate when a public officer who is a party in an official 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

August 14, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-20462 Document: 60-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2024
No. 23-20462 

2 

discriminated against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 

701, et seq., for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate. The 

district court granted TAMU’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed 

Reiss’s claims, and entered final judgment. For the reasons that follow, we 

AFFIRM. 

I 

Valerie Reiss was a student in Texas A&M University’s Doctor of 

Veterinary Medicine (“DVM”) program. It is undisputed that while enrolled 

in the DVM program, Reiss requested and received accommodations 

through the disability services office for back conditions exacerbated by a car 

accident in Spring 2016. Reiss received accommodations in the form of 

extended time for exams, flexibility with tardiness, and limited physical 

activity. The disability services office provided the same accommodations to 

Reiss each semester. Reiss was dismissed from the DVM program in April 

2019 after receiving a failing grade in her Small Animal General Surgery 

Rotation. Pursuant to the Texas A&M University Professional Student 

Handbook, a student is automatically dismissed if they accumulate three Ds, 

two Fs, or two Ds and one F. Her first semester, Reiss received an F in Small 

Animal Anatomy and a D in Physiology. In April 2019, Reiss received an F in 

her Small Animal General Surgery Rotation—her second F while enrolled in 

the DVM program—and was automatically dismissed from the program. 

The bulk of Reiss’s claims centers around her experience in her Small 

Animal General Surgery Rotation. Reiss argues that during this rotation, her 

supervisor, Dr. Amanda Richards, did not accommodate her disability. 

_____________________ 

capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office while the action is pending. The officer’s 

successor is automatically substituted as a party.”). 

Case: 23-20462 Document: 60-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2024
No. 23-20462 

3 

Specifically, Reiss alleges that during a surgery on March 7, 2019, Dr. 

Richards failed to provide her a cart or a standing desk and was angry with 

Reiss when she raised concerns about her disability and accommodations. 

The following day, Dr. Richards asked Reiss how the accommodations were 

going, and Reiss responded that the accommodations were “pretty good 

overall.” During this same conversation, Dr. Richards raised concerns that 

Reiss was approaching things with “a little too much confidence” and 

cautioned her to ask questions when she was unsure about something. 

On March 18, 2019, Dr. Richards sent Reiss an email with more 

concerns about Reiss’s performance. Dr. Richards listed several issues she 

saw, including Reiss miscommunicating with another student about which 

medication to prescribe, Reiss being unable to evaluate a patient by sight, and 

Reiss being unable to address her patient’s hypotension effectively. Dr. 

Richards then outlined several areas where Reiss needed to improve, 

including asking questions before moving forward, communicating more 

accurately and effectively with her classmates, and taking instruction 

seriously. Reiss responded with her own interpretation of the points that Dr. 

Richards had raised, asking to be “given the benefit of the doubt,” and the 

opportunity “to show the improvement” Dr. Richards was looking for. Dr. 

Richards responded again, copying other faculty on the email, raising 

concerns about Reiss’s performance and her ability to be a competent 

veterinarian. Reiss failed the rotation and was automatically dismissed from 

the DVM program. 

Following the second failing grade, this time in her Small Animal 

General Surgery Rotation, Reiss was given a choice between initiating a grade 

appeal process or appealing for readmission, either of which had to happen 

within ten business days from the date of her automatic dismissal. Instead of 

pursuing either option at that time, Reiss requested a medical deferral from 

the DVM program, which was approved in April 2019. In approving Reiss’s 

Case: 23-20462 Document: 60-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/14/2024
No. 23-20462 

4 

medical deferral, the letter specifically stated that “because you have been 

dismissed from the professional curriculum based upon your accumulation 

of 2Fs and 1D in the DVM program, 10 days following your return from the 

medical deferral, you must notify the Professional Programs Office if you 

wish to appeal the failing grade . . . or if you wish to appeal for readmission to 

the DVM program.” Reiss neither initiated a grade appeal nor appealed for 

readmission into the DVM program. 

In May 2019, she requested accommodations in the form of 

completing all rotations at alternative locations in Dallas—away from Texas 

A&M University. A committee responsible for reviewing accommodation 

requests denied this accommodation, finding it to be unreasonable. Instead, 

the disability services office offered Reiss (1) meetings with clinical 

supervisors and a veterinary school representative before each rotation to 

review accommodations and discuss concerns; (2) weekly meetings to ensure 

all accommodations were being provided; and (3) an opportunity to work 

with Student Counseling Services to ensure additional counseling was 

available. Reiss insisted this offer was unacceptable. 

In August 2019, Reiss indicated that she wished to return to active 

student status and again requested the additional accommodation of 

completing all final rotations in Dallas. Texas A&M University responded 

that Reiss had been dismissed from the DVM program and that she must 

either pursue a grade appeal or apply for readmission before changing her 

student status to active. They also noted that Reiss may not move forward 

with the grade appeal process until she indicated she was ready to return from 

the medical deferral. Reiss acknowledges that she neither appealed her failing 

grade nor applied for readmission to the DVM program, and that following 

this August 2019 exchange, she ceased all communications with Texas A&M. 

Case: 23-20462 Document: 60-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/14/2024
No. 23-20462 

5 

Reiss brought this lawsuit in January 2021, bringing claims for 

violations of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act for disability discrimination 

and failure to accommodate. TAMU filed a motion for summary judgment. 

Following a Report and Recommendation by the magistrate judge, the 

district court granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissed Reiss’s 

claims, and entered final judgment. Reiss timely appealed. 

II

This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de 

novo. Fahim v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 551 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Summary judgment shall issue “if the movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “In determining whether a genuine 

issue as to any material fact exists, [the court] must view the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Fahim, 551 F.3d at 348–49. 

III 

Reiss appeals the entry of summary judgment as to her disability 

discrimination and failure to accommodate claims.2

 Reiss argues that the 

district court erred in entering summary judgment on her disability 

discrimination claims because “the evidence showed that Reiss could not 

return from her medical deferral unless and until she was provided the 

accommodations requested.” TAMU responds that the sole reason for 

_____________________ 

2

 On appeal, TAMU argues that Reiss did not adequately allege disability 

discrimination claims in her amended complaint. The district court stated that it was “not 

entirely clear whether Reiss intends to bring discrimination claims,” but it addressed the 

merits of Reiss’s discrimination claims out of an abundance of caution. Reiss’s amended 

complaint includes headings for “failure to accommodate” and “discrimination.” 

Although TAMU is correct that much of Reiss’s amended complaint discusses her failure 

to accommodate claims, we will address Reiss’s disability discrimination claims as her 

amended complaint clearly alleges such a claim. 

Case: 23-20462 Document: 60-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/14/2024
No. 23-20462 

6 

Reiss’s dismissal from the program was her failure to meet the academic 

standards, and that Reiss failed to create a dispute of material fact on this 

issue. 

To establish a disability discrimination claim under either the 

Rehabilitation Act or the ADA3

 “in the context of a student excluded from 

an educational program, on summary judgment, a plaintiff must create a 

genuine dispute of material fact that: (1) she has a disability; (2) she is 

otherwise qualified to participate in the defendant’s program; and (3) she was 

excluded from the program on the basis of her disability.” Maples v. Univ. of 

Tex. Med. Branch, 901 F. Supp. 2d 874, 879 n.3 (S.D. Tex. 2012), aff’d, 524 

F. App’x 93 (5th Cir. 2013). To prevail on a failure to accommodate claim 

under either statute, on summary judgment, a plaintiff must create a genuine 

dispute of material fact that: “(1) the plaintiff is a qualified individual with a 

disability; (2) the disability and its consequential limitations were known by 

the covered employer; and (3) the employer failed to make reasonable 

accommodations for such known limitations.” Amedee v. Shell Chem., L.P., 

953 F.3d 831, 837 (5th Cir. 2020).4

 Thus, under both claims, Reiss must be 

otherwise “qualified” to participate in the DVM program. 

_____________________ 

3

 The Rehabilitation Act was enacted “to ensure that handicapped individuals are 

not denied jobs or other benefits because of prejudiced attitudes or ignorance of others.” 

Brennan v. Stewart, 834 F.2d 1248, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988). Similarly, the ADA was enacted 

to prevent discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Id. As the language in the 

statutes contain parallel language, [j]urisprudence interpreting either section is applicable 

to both.” Hainze v. Richards, 207 F.3d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 2000). 

4

 A “qualified individual with a disability” under the ADA is an “individual with 

a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, . 

. . meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation 

in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2). The 

Rehabilitation Act similarly prevents discrimination against “qualified individuals with 

disabilities.” 29 U.S.C. § 701. 

Case: 23-20462 Document: 60-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/14/2024
No. 23-20462 

7 

Reiss argues that she was qualified for the program because she passed 

a licensing exam and had been offered several jobs. This is inapposite. It is 

apparent based on the record that Reiss does not meet the essential eligibility 

requirements for participation in the program articulated in the Texas A&M 

University Professional Student Handbook. McGregor v. La. State Univ. Bd. 

of Sup’rs, 3 F.3d 850, 855 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that “to be otherwise 

qualified for retention, McGregor must be capable of satisfying the academic 

and technical requirements set by the Law Center with the aid of reasonable 

accommodations”); see also Shaikh v. Texas A&M Univ. Coll. of Med., 739 F. 

App’x 215, 221 (5th Cir. 2018) (finding that the plaintiff satisfied the essential 

eligibility requirements to remain in the program where he passed all the 

required curriculum and his third-year clinical rotations with honors). She 

failed the Small Animal General Surgery rotation as a result of her poor 

academic performance, and neither appealed her failing grade nor appealed 

for readmission. Maples, 901 F. Supp. 2d at 882 (quoting Halpern v. Wake 

Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454, 465 (4th Cir. 2012)) (“[T]he law does 

not require the school to ignore misconduct that has occurred because the 

student subsequently asserts it was the result of a disability.”). Reiss was 

unable to meet the essential eligibility requirements of the DVM program, 

and thus, cannot bring a failure to accommodate claim or a disability 

discrimination claim under either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. 

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-20462 Document: 60-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/14/2024