Doe v. Southeastern University
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
732 F. Supp. 7 (1990)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
John Doe (plaintiff) was a student at Southeastern University (Southeastern) (defendant) who tested positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Due to complications related to his condition, Doe had to be hospitalized and to miss classes. To be excused, Doe had his doctor send medical records to Southeastern confirming his condition and his need to miss classes. Information regarding Doe’s condition was allegedly leaked to unauthorized faculty and staff members, causing Doe to face harassment based on his HIV status. Doe eventually felt forced to transfer to the University of Maryland, but after starting at his new school, Doe discovered that Southeastern had allegedly and improperly notified the University of Maryland about his HIV status. Doe filed suit against Southeastern on several grounds, including violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Doe sought compensatory and punitive damages. Southeastern filed a motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed several claims due to statute-of-limitations issues and failures to state a claim. The court found that the Rehabilitation Act did not have a statute of limitations and applied Washington D.C.’s personal-injury statute of limitations, allowing Doe to bring his claim. The court then addressed the remedies available under the Rehabilitation Act.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Harris, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.