UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

AT DAYTON 

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00395 

TROY D. COX 

3764 Belleau Wood Drive 

Lexington, KY 40517 

 PLAINTIFF, 

v. 

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON 

300 College Park 

Dayton, OH 45469 

DEFENDANT. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Judge Walter H. Rice 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY 

DEMAND

 Plaintiff, Troy D. Cox, for his causes of action against Defendant states as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION

1. Plaintiff, Troy Cox, is a qualified individual with a disability eligible for coverage under 

29 U.S.C. § 794 (more commonly known as § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter “ADA”). The Defendant, University of 

Dayton, is a private institution of higher learning funded in part by public funds, including 

federal funds. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This action arises out of both 29 U.S.C. § 794, more commonly known as § 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, and 28 U.S.C. § 12182, more commonly known as the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. 

3. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 1 of 18 PAGEID #: 84
2

4. The Court is empowered to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining 

state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 on the grounds that they are so related to the 

federal claims, over which the Court has original jurisdiction, that they form part of the 

same case or controversy. 

5. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The Defendant 

University of Dayton is found within the Southern District of Ohio. Additionally, the acts 

giving rise to this action occurred within this district. Therefore, venue is proper in this 

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff, Troy Cox, is a qualified individual with a disability as defined by § 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. Plaintiff, who served in the Gulf War, was honorably 

discharged from United States Navy in 2013. 

7. Defendant, University of Dayton (“UD”), is a not for profit corporation organized under 

the laws of the State of Ohio. Defendant UD is a private postsecondary educational 

institution which receives public funds. University of Dayton is located in Dayton, Ohio. 

8. Defendant receives funding from both state and federal agencies and is required to comply 

with the statutory schemes of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. 

9. Defendant is required to provide equal access to its curriculum and programs to students 

with disabilities enrolled in the University. 

10. Defendant is required to provide reasonable accommodations to students enrolled in the 

University to allow the students equal opportunity and enjoyment of the Defendant’s 

programs as any other non-disabled student. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 2 of 18 PAGEID #: 85
3

STATEMENT OF FACTS

11. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1-10 by reference. 

12. Plaintiff, Troy Cox, is a qualified individual with a disability as more particularly described 

below. 

13. Plaintiff applied to the University of Dayton School of Law on February 29, 2016. 

14. Plaintiff was accepted and enrolled at University of Dayton, College of Law, for the fall 

semester of 2016. Classes were to begin on August 29, 2016. 

15. Upon enrollment, on or about August 22, 2016, Plaintiff contacted Defendant University 

of Dayton’s Office of Learning Resources/Disability Resources (OLR) for the purpose of 

obtaining reasonable accommodations for his disabilites. Requests for law student 

disability accommodations are made to this office. 

16. OLR’s website indicates: “Disability documentation should be current and relevant but not 

necessarily ‘recent.’ Disabilities are typically stable lifelong conditions. Therefore, 

historic information, supplemented by interview or self-report, is often sufficient to 

describe how the condition impacts the student at the current time and in the current 

circumstances.” 

17. On August 22, 2016, Plaintiff verbally requested an accommodation to assist with his home 

study, classwork and testing. At that time Plaintiff attempted to explain his medical 

conditions and resulting limitations as more fully described below. 

18. Defendant directed Plaintiff to the University of Dayton website to complete an initial 

intake form regarding his accommodations. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 3 of 18 PAGEID #: 86
4

19. Plaintiff completed the online intake form on August 22, 2016. His request number was 

A00310-2016. In that form Plaintiff described his disabilities and resulting physical 

limitations that effected his ability to study, complete assignments and take tests as follows: 

From previous physical injuries, broken back and broken neck, I am unable to sit 

sometimes for even short periods. I further suffer from severe and debilitating 

migraines because of these injuries and several other prior causes. I have an old 

injury to the neck that causes severe pain and paralysis in half of my neck, face and 

tongue when it flares. Sitting or reading, such as we do in any classroom, causes 

my extraordinary pain and discomfort sometimes. I generally do ok, when able to 

break, stretch, and rest for a few mins during these times when needed. 

I am a retired military combat veteran and suffer from PTSD and anxiety, at levels 

that require when needed, that I be allowed to immediately leave and take some 

private time. 

20. In that request form that Plaintiff submitted to Defendant on August 22, 2016, Plaintiff 

requested the following accommodations: 

Accommodations received at Eastern Kentucky University, during undergrad, was 

time and one half for testing, quizes (sic.) and exams of any sorts as well as needed 

time for any assignments delayed/late because of my disabilities. 

Would like to have dictation software. Medically being evaluated for loss of 

strength in both hands and weakness/fatigue in both. Unable to write by hand with 

a pen for more than a few mins at a time. . . . 

21. In fact, the medical information that was available to Defendant at that time confirmed that 

Plaintiff suffered from the following disabling conditions, among other conditions suffered 

by Plaintiff: neck tongue syndrome with severe incomplete paralysis. with involvement of 

the v and IX cranial nerves; adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, 

lumbar strain spasm, recurrent; degenerative disc and facet disease of the cervical spine; 

and patellofemoral syndrome, left knee. These injuries and conditions were incurred during 

Plaintiff’s service in the Gulf War or are otherwise service related.

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 4 of 18 PAGEID #: 87
5

22. These requested accommodations were reasonable and would, in fact, allow Plaintiff to 

enjoy the same educational benefits with Defendant as enjoyed by non-disabled students 

by helping him read and comprehend class materials, complete assignments and take tests. 

Conversely, the Defendant’s failure to provide such reasonable accommodations to 

Plaintiff would discriminate against Plaintiff by denying him the same educational benefits 

that Defendant offered to non-disabled students by denying him the ability to properly read 

and comprehend class materials, to study for exams and to take exams. 

23. Defendant did not follow up with Plaintiff’s online request or otherwise respond to 

Plaintiff. 

24. Having heard nothing from Defendant, around the first week of September 2016, Plaintiff 

entered Defendant’s Office of Learning Resources (the office responsible for disability 

accommodations for students) to hand-deliver documents to supplement his online request. 

Those documents confirmed the following disabling conditions, among other conditions 

suffered by Plaintiff: neck tongue syndrome with severe incomplete paralysis. with 

involvement of the V and IX cranial nerves; adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and 

depressed mood, lumbar strain spasm, recurrent; degenerative disc and facet disease of the 

cervical spine; and patellofemoral syndrome, left knee. These injuries and conditions were 

incurred during Plaintiff’s service in the Gulf War or are otherwise service related. These 

conditions substantially interfere, for extended periods of time, with or prevent him from 

performing the following major life activities: intermittent severe difficulties chewing, 

swallowing and, at times, speaking; sitting or standing for extended periods of time; 

periodic inability to move as a result of pain and exhaustion; and inability to read and 

comprehend materials, concentrating, and properly communicate. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 5 of 18 PAGEID #: 88
6

25. In addition to documents confirming the above disabling conditions, the documents 

Plaintiff presented to Defendant UD in September 2016 included Plaintiff’s prior 

undergraduate accommodations issued in 2015 by Eastern Kentucky University for the 

same conditions, and documentation issued in 2013 by the Department of Veterans Affairs 

confirming the conditions described above. 

26. Defendant, acting through its authorized staff in the OLR, rejected Plaintiff’s handdelivered documents without reviewing them or any further inquiry into their contents and 

without any plausible explanation for rejecting consideration of those documents. 

27. From the moment Plaintiff made his accommodations request to Defendant, Defendant had 

an affirmative duty to engage in an interactive process, including consideration of all the 

above described materials Plaintiff attempted to submit to Defendant in support of his 

request for accommodations. Nevertheless, Plaintiff was informed by the OLR that 

Defendant would conduct its own independent evaluation. 

28. At all relevant times, Office of Learning Resources was acting for Defendant with full 

authority to render accommodation decisions on its behalf. 

29. Defendant refused to consider any VA documentation or undergraduate accommodation 

documentation Plaintiff submitted to Defendant in September and advised that Defendant 

would have to conduct its own disabilities evaluation. 

30. Plaintiff is not aware of, and was never informed, that Defendant actually conducted its 

own “independent evaluation.” To Plaintiff’s knowledge, Defendant’s decision to provide 

accommodations to Plaintiff was based largely or entirely on medical documentation that 

was provided by Plaintiff and available to Defendant in early September of 2016. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 6 of 18 PAGEID #: 89
7

31. On or about October 28, 2016, Plaintiff emailed OLR additional disabilities rating 

documents issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs, confirming his VA disability 

rating and the disabling conditions described above. 

32. On or about November 1, 2016, Plaintiff was to attend an appointment with the OLR. 

Defendant cancelled this appointment due to sickness. 

33. On or about November 16, 2016, Plaintiff met with authorized OLR staff and provided 

Disabilities Ratings documentation which both assigned Plaintiff a 50% disability rating, 

reaffirmed the disabling conditions described above, and discussed how his above 

described disabilities manifested. 

34. Defendant again rejected Plaintiff’s documentation and informed him that it needed “the 

most recent information.” 

35. At this time, Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff’s disabling medical 

conditions were permanent and would not improve. Plaintiff accordingly requested that 

Defendant email him the standards or guidelines that Defendant was using in determining 

whether it would provide the requested accommodations. 

36. By delaying its decision and obstructing Plaintiff’s efforts to provide relevant medical 

information as described above, Defendant breached its duty to engage in an interactive 

process to provide Plaintiff reasonable accommodation that would afford him access to 

educational benefits equal to those enjoyed by non-disabled students. 

37. On the afternoon of November 16, 2016, Defendant emailed Plaintiff stating that the 

University of Dayton School of Law follows the “MPRE Documentation Guidelines” to 

determine disability eligibility and provided him a link to that site. Plaintiff had not been 

previously informed of those standards. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 7 of 18 PAGEID #: 90
8

38. In fact, the documentation described above that was already offered to Defendant met the 

MPRE Documentation Guidelines. 

39. On or about November 21, 2016, Plaintiff sent Brenda Cooper a copy of Disabilities 

Ratings documentation which assigned Plaintiff a 70% disability rating. This confirmed 

most of the conditions described above and was included in the information Plaintiff 

previously offered to Defendant, but was refused by it for the ostensible reason that 

Defendant was conducting its own evaluation. 

40. Finally, on November 23, 2016, the day before Thanksgiving, the OLR determined that 

Plaintiff was eligible for academic accommodations, but they would not be granted until 

Spring, 2017. 

41. For two months or longer, Defendant had access to, yet refused adequate documentation 

that had been offered by Plaintiff. The documentation triggered their affirmative duty to 

engage in the interactive process, yet Defendant intentionally delayed doing so. 

42. For two months or longer, Defendant intentionally hindered Plaintiff’s ability to receive 

accommodations for both his home study, classwork, and his final exams by rejecting his 

proffered documentation and requesting repetitive and cumulative documentation and 

otherwise delaying and obstructing the processing of his accommodation requests. 

43. To Plaintiff’s knowledge, there was no webpage regarding accommodations requests 

specific to the School of Law. 

44. Defendant had ample time to grant Plaintiff’s accommodations relating to his home 

study, classwork, and his test taking during his first semester, yet chose not to do so. 

45. Defendant’s email of November 23, 2016, granting accommodations stated Plaintiff’s 

“next step” was “to meet with School of Law Shannon Penn, Assistant Dean of Student 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 8 of 18 PAGEID #: 91
9

Affairs and Registrar” in order “to determine how accommodations will be addressed in 

each class / each semester.” 

46. Three days later, the Sunday of Plaintiff’s Thanksgiving Break, he emailed Dean 

Shannon Penn, pursuant to the email instructions. Plaintiff stated, “I would like to meet 

at your earliest convenience to complete the accommodations request.” Plaintiff did not 

receive a response. 

47. In fact, Plaintiff went to Dean Penn’s office shortly after the Thanksgiving break to meet 

with her to discuss his accommodations. Penn declined to meet with Plaintiff, stating that 

his accommodations would not go into effect until the next semester. 

48. At all relevant times, Dean Shannon Penn was acting for and on behalf of Defendant with 

respect to Defendant’s efforts to obtain accommodations that would make it possible for 

him to enjoy academic benefits offered by Defendant equal to those offered non-disabled 

students. 

49. After completing his first semester of law school and finals without any of the 

accommodations he had requested and that had ultimately been approved by Defendant, 

Plaintiff performed well below the GPA required by Defendant. 

50. Plaintiff nonetheless returned for the Spring 2017 semester. 

51. On January 16, 2016, Plaintiff spoke to Dean Shannon Penn to check in on the previously 

requested accommodations meeting. Dean Shannon Penn told Plaintiff to “do nothing,” 

as she had already been planning to schedule a meeting with Plaintiff. 

52. The next day, Plaintiff received an email from OLR. The email was also sent to Dean 

Shannon Penn. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 9 of 18 PAGEID #: 92
10

53. The email stated that Plaintiff “did not follow up with the mandatory appointment to 

discuss appropriate accommodations” or “draft and sign the required forms for the Law 

School in consideration for SP17” with Brenda Cooper. 

54. At no point was Plaintiff made aware of a “mandatory meeting” with Brenda Cooper. 

Instead, Plaintiff followed instructions given him in the email of November 23, 2016, 

described above, and emailed Dean Shannon Penn to initiate the process. 

55. On January 24, 2017, Dean Shannon Penn emailed Plaintiff to set up a meeting regarding 

his accommodations request. 

56. Just over three hours later, Dean Shannon Penn again emailed Plaintiff. The email stated, 

“I spoke with Ms. Cooper in the Office of Learning Resources and, it has come to my 

attention that you have not completed the procedures for obtaining accommodations. I will 

meet with you regarding your accommodations once you complete the process with Ms. 

Cooper.” 

57. Plaintiff replied, citing the email of November 23, 2016, which clearly stated his next step 

was to contact and meet with Dean Shannon Penn, not Brenda Cooper, and with which he 

had fully complied. 

58. Thus, Defendant continued to discourage Plaintiff’s ongoing efforts to seek reasonable 

accommodations and thereby continued to violate its duty to provide Plaintiff reasonable 

accommodation so that he could enjoy the same academic benefits Defendant offered to its 

non-disabled students. 

59. By February 2, 2017, Plaintiff received his requested accommodations, including extended 

time for assignments and test taking, as well as assistive software that allowed him to 

complete assignments, use the computer, and take tests without the pain and concentration 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 10 of 18 PAGEID #: 93
11

problems he experienced without the software. These are essentially, the same 

accommodations Plaintiff requested on August 22, 2016 and essentially the same 

accommodations he received while at Eastern Kentucky University. 

60. With those accommodations, Plaintiff was now better able to maintain concentration, read 

materials, submit assignments, and be overall more prepared for classes. That is, he was 

now able to function on the same footing as non-disabled students and obtain the same 

educational benefits as the non-disabled students. 

61. Because the Plaintiff’s fall semester was completed without a single accommodation, it 

was not until sometime after February 2, 2017, that Plaintiff was finally offered a fair 

opportunity to begin to enjoy the same academic benefits as non-disabled students were 

offered by Defendant, adjust to law school, and utilize appropriate study skills on the same 

level as his non-disabled peers. 

62. With accommodations, Plaintiff’s Spring 2017 semester grades improved. 

63. Because Defendant failed to offer Plaintiff any reasonable accommodations for his entire 

first semester and part of his second semester, as described above, Defendant knew 

Plaintiff now faced the insurmountable task of raising his GPA almost an entire grade 

point in a single semester. 

64. Plaintiff would have needed to perform well above an average level to raise his 

cumulative GPA to the requisite standard. 

65. Plaintiff, facing not only added anxiety and stress caused by Defendant’s pressure, but 

also typical law school stress, fell short of the requisite cumulative GPA for the year. 

66. On or around May 26, 2017, Dean Shannon Penn notified Plaintiff that he was 

academically dismissed. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 11 of 18 PAGEID #: 94
12

67. Plaintiff then met with Dean Shaw, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, who told him 

an appeal could be entered with a deadline of June 26, 2017. 

68. On June 5, 2017, Plaintiff emailed Dean Shaw for assistance with the appeals process. 

Plaintiff received no response. 

69. On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff emailed Dean Shannon Penn regarding the appeals policy and 

assistance in locating the policy online. Dean Penn replied that it was “too late” because 

the deadline was in fact June 16, 2017. 

70. Defendant continuously and intentionally delayed and otherwise obstructed processing of 

Plaintiff’s accommodations request in the manner described above. 

71. Defendant’s intentional failure to comply with their affirmative duty to engage in the 

interactive process, coupled with seeking unnecessary, duplicative documentation in order 

to delay Plaintiff’s request, has denied Plaintiff a fair opportunity to enjoy academic 

benefits offered by Defendant to its non-disabled students, solely because of Plaintiff’s 

disabilities and persistent efforts to pursue his rights under state and federal civil rights 

laws. 

72. By Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to study, complete 

assignments, and take exams because of the periodic, substantial physical pain and stress 

caused by his medical conditions while trying to perform those essential tasks. 

73. Defendant’s actions described above were taken against Plaintiff because of his persistent 

efforts to assert his rights to reasonable accommodations as afforded by both state and 

federal law. 

74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct as described above, Plaintiff has 

been deprived of a law degree, delayed, has a diminished and/or deprived ability to earn 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 12 of 18 PAGEID #: 95
13

income commensurate with Defendant’s other non-disabled students, and caused him 

severe emotional and physical pain and suffering and other injuries, all in an amount to be 

determined by the evidence at trial. 

COUNT I 

(Rehabilitation Act – 29 USC § 794) 

75. Plaintiff incorporates all factual allegations set out above. 

76. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability, is perceived as disabled, and/or has a 

record of a disability as defined under the Rehabilitation Act.

77. Defendant’s acts as described above in discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff 

solely because of his disability both perceived and real, include, and denying him 

reasonable academic accommodation in the manner described above, operated to deny 

Plaintiff educational benefits equal to non-disabled students in violation of Plaintiff’s rights 

as protected by the Rehabilitation Act. 

78. Defendant’s acts were willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. 

79. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been 

injured in the manner described above all to his damage in an amount to be determined by 

the evidence at trial. 

COUNT II

(ADA – Disability Discrimination)

80. Plaintiff incorporates all factual allegations set out above. 

81. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability, is perceived as disabled, and/or has a 

record of a disability as defined under the ADA. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 13 of 18 PAGEID #: 96
14

82. Plaintiff could perform the essential functions of his role as a law student with reasonable 

accommodations. 

83. Defendant’s acts as described above in discriminating against Plaintiff solely because of 

his disability both perceived and real, and denying him reasonable academic 

accommodation in the manner described above, operated to deny Plaintiff educational 

benefits equal to non-disabled students in violation of Plaintiff’s rights as protected by the 

Title III of the American with Disabilities Act. 

84. Defendant’s acts were willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. 

85. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been 

injured in the manner described above all to his damage in an amount to be determined by 

the evidence at trial. 

COUNT III

(ADA – Failure to Accommodate/Retaliation)

86. Plaintiff incorporates all factual allegations set out above. 

87. Plaintiff lawfully requested reasonable accommodations for his disability from Defendant. 

88. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s numerous requests for reasonable accommodations. 

89. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for requesting and/or availing himself of reasonable 

accommodations. 

90. Defendant’s acts in retaliating against Plaintiff because he asserted rights under the ADA 

include, but are not limited to, refusing to timely engage in the interactive process, 

requesting duplicative and cumulative documentation, refusing to grant classroom and 

testing accommodations for Plaintiff’s fall semester, and otherwise engaging in the conduct 

described above, in violation of the ADA. 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 14 of 18 PAGEID #: 97
15

91. Defendant’s acts were willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. 

92. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been 

injured in the manner described above all to his damage in an amount to be determined by 

the evidence at trial. 

COUNT IV 

(R.C. Chapter 4112.02 – Disability Discrimination) 

93. Plaintiff incorporates all factual allegations set out above.

94. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability, is perceived as disabled, and/or has a 

record of a disability as defined under Ohio law. 

95. Plaintiff could perform the essential functions of his role as a law student with reasonable 

accommodations. 

96. Defendant’s acts as described above in discriminating against Plaintiff solely because of 

his disability both perceived and real, and denying him reasonable academic 

accommodation in the manner described above, operated to deny Plaintiff educational 

benefits equal to non-disabled students in violation of Plaintiff’s rights as protected by 

Ohio Civil Rights Act, R.C. Chapter 4112.02, et seq.

97. Defendant’s acts were willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. 

98. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been 

injured in the manner described above all to his damage in an amount to be determined by 

the evidence at trial. 

 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 15 of 18 PAGEID #: 98
16

COUNT V

(R.C. Chapter 4112 – Failure to Accommodate/Retaliation) 

99. Plaintiff incorporates all factual allegations set out above. 

100. Plaintiff lawfully requested reasonable accommodations for his disability from Defendant. 

101. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s numerous requests for reasonable accommodations. 

102. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for requesting and/or availing himself of reasonable 

accommodations. 

103. Defendant’s acts as described above in discriminating against Plaintiff solely because of 

his disability both perceived and real, and denying him reasonable academic 

accommodation in the manner described above, and otherwise retaliating against Plaintiff 

because he was asserting rights under Chapter 4112, operated to deny Plaintiff educational 

benefits equal to non-disabled students in violation of Plaintiff’s rights as protected by 

Ohio Civil Rights Act, R.C. Chapter 4112.02, et seq.

104. Defendant’s acts were willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. 

105. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has been 

injured in the manner described above all to his damage in an amount to be determined by 

the evidence at trial. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Troy D. Cox demands judgment against Defendant University 

of Dayton as follows: 

(a) That Defendant be enjoined from further unlawful conduct as described in the 

Complaint; 

(b) That Plaintiff’s fall 2016 records be expunged; 

(c) That Plaintiff be reenrolled at University of Dayton College of Law; 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 16 of 18 PAGEID #: 99
17

(d) That Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages, including but not limited to, the 

cost of one year of law school and all related expenses, loss of opportunity, the 

physical pain he endured through testing without accommodations, his emotional 

pain and suffering in the form of embarrassment, anger, and anxiety, as well as 

for reputational injury; 

(e) That Plaintiff be entitled to preserve the appeal regarding his Civil Procedure II 

grade; 

(f) That Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages; 

(g) That Plaintiff be awarded pre-judgment interest; 

(h) That Plaintiff be rewarded reasonable attorney’s costs and fees; and 

(i) That Plaintiff be awarded all other legal and equitable relief to which he may be 

entitled. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/Michael J. O’Hara 

 MICHAEL J. O’HARA (OH Bar No. 0014966) 

 O’HARA, TAYLOR, SLOAN & CASSIDY 

 25 Town Center Boulevard, Suite 201 

 Covington, Kentucky 41017 

mohara@oharataylor.com

 (859) 331-2000 

 FAX: (859) 578-3365

 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 

 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 17 of 18 PAGEID #: 100
18

JURY DEMAND

 Pursuant to Federal Rule 38, Plaintiff herewith demands that all issues of fact in the 

foregoing Complaint be tried to a jury. 

 /s/Michael J. O’Hara 

 MICHAEL J. O’HARA 

 O’HARA, TAYLOR, SLOAN & CASSIDY 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on August 30, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to 

all parties and counsel of record. 

 /s/Michael J. O’Hara 

 MICHAEL J. O’HARA 

Case: 3:17-cv-00395-WHR-SLO Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 18 of 18 PAGEID #: 101