Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Southeastern Community College v. Davis

United States Supreme Court
442 U.S. 397 (1979)


Facts

Davis (plaintiff) applied to an associate-degree nursing program at Southeastern Community College (the college) (defendant). Davis suffered from a serious hearing disability that prevented her from being able to understand normal speech. Davis had developed lip-reading skills. However, Davis was only able to understand speech if the speaker had gotten her attention, and she was looking directly at the speaker. The college discovered this disability and consulted with Mary McRee, the executive director of the North Carolina Board of Nursing. McRee advised that Davis’s disability would make it unsafe for Davis to practice as a nurse or participate safely in the normal clinical-training program, because Davis would be unable to respond to vocal commands from physicians in an operating room with surgical masks and in other scenarios. Based on McRee’s advice, the college determined that Davis was not qualified for the nursing program. Davis sued the college, alleging a violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as well as the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. The district court ruled in favor of the college after a bench trial. Davis appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reversed. The college then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review. The Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Powell, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.