July 2015 - Parks & Recreation - 36

L AW R E V I E W

tiff argued that UCSD " could have suspended her and
later readmitted her once she stabilized and began taking
her medications. " That being said, plaintiff 's medical expert acknowledged that no one could have made plaintiff
" take her medication if she refused to do so. "
Accordingly, the federal district court found plaintiff
had failed to " identify or explain how a referral to a mental health professional or an indefinite suspension would
have accommodated her disability. "
Unlike a ramp for the mobility impaired, or a sign language interpreter for the hearing impaired, that directly
addresses and accommodates the disability, a referral to a
mental health professional accomplishes nothing...
There is simply no evidence to show that if plaintiff were
referred to a medical health professional, she would immediately be accommodated...It is not the referral to a mental
health professional that has the potential to accommodate
plaintiff 's bipolar condition. Rather, it is the treatment received from a mental health professional that would address,
treat and accommodate plaintiff 's condition.
As a result, the federal district court denied plaintiff 's

claim the UCSD had failed to " reasonably accommodate "
her disability by failing to refer plaintiff to a mental health
counseling unit.
Interactive Process?
Further, once she began exhibiting " obsessive-compulsive
behaviors and threatened to commit suicide, " plaintiff
claimed " her behavior placed the coaches on notice that
they were under a mandatory obligation to refer her to
mental health professional. " The federal district court rejected this argument.

Having signed a form acknowledging
that she read and understood the
Code, plaintiff testified that she indeed
" understood her conduct had to
comply with the Code. "
In so doing, the court found such assistance was only
required by the ADA in an employment situation. In the
context of employment, where an employer knows of an
employee's disability and the employee is unable to make
an accommodation request, under the ADA, the employer
must assist in initiating the interactive process to discuss
accommodations.
In this particular instance, the federal district noted
" plaintiff 's claim does not arise under the ADA (although
there is substantial overlap with the Rehabilitation Act)
nor in the context of employment. " Unlike " fundamental rights such as employment and education, " the court
found, further, plaintiff 's participation in the program was
" not generally considered indispensable to maintaining a
productive and sustainable livelihood. "
Attending and participating in a group exercise class, one
of hundreds of thousands of classes available in San Diego
County, is a voluntary and discretionary activity. Plaintiff
is one of many voluntary participants in a group exercise
class with emphasis on triathlon.
As a result, the federal district court found UCSD had
no legal duty " to employ mental health professionals, or
to provide sufficient training to its coaches to become proficient in recognizing debilitating mental health issues in
participants in the Program. " Further, in the absence of
such a duty, UCSD had no responsibility to " then refer
that participant to a mental health professional who may

34 Parks & Recreation

| J U LY 2 0 1 5 | W W W. N R PA . O R G

July 2015 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of July 2015 - Parks & Recreation