Covington v. McNeese State University
Louisiana Court of Appeal
996 So. 2d 667 (2008)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Collette Covington (plaintiff) was a student at McNeese State University (McNeese) (defendant) in Louisiana. Covington had a seizure disorder and multiple mobility issues that required her to use a wheelchair. In January 2001, after attending class, Covington went to McNeese’s student union, the Old Ranch, to wait for her transportation. While there, Covington needed to use the restroom. The restroom Covington attempted to use did not have a door wide enough to meet federal wheelchair standards. Covington got her wheelchair into the room but encountered the same issue with the stall doors. Unable to get her wheelchair into a stall, Covington tried to lift herself in without it. Covington urinated on herself during the effort, which caused humiliation. After getting back into her chair, Covington injured herself while struggling to open the restroom’s exterior door. Covington sued McNeese, alleging McNeese had violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against her through inaccessible facilities. McNeese did not have any women’s restroom in the Old Ranch with sufficient access for wheelchair entry into either the room or the stalls. Although McNeese had renovated the Old Ranch after the ADA’s enactment, it had not brought the facilities into compliance. McNeese had also not met the ADA requirement to have a written transition plan to make the Old Ranch accessible. Rather than admitting fault, McNeese argued that Covington was not disabled and that, even if she was disabled, it had not discriminated against her because other parts of the Old Ranch, such as two computer stations, had been made accessible during the renovations. The trial court granted summary judgment to Covington. McNeese appealed, still disputing whether Covington qualified was disabled and, alternatively, whether its failure to provide accessible restrooms was discrimination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Saunders, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

