OCD & Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Obsessive-compulsive disorder is misunderstood in higher education in a specific and costly way. It is treated as a personality quirk about tidiness, and it is described in accommodation requests as anxiety, which produces the wrong accommodations.

If your college has refused, delayed, or failed to deliver an accommodation for OCD, here is how I handle disability accommodation disputes under Section 504 and the ADA.

OCD is largely a disorder of time. The work is usually right. It takes three times as long, because checking, re-reading, re-writing and mental rituals consume the hours. Which means the single most consequential place it shows up is exactly where the clock is running.

What accommodations look like

Examinations: extended time, frequently more than the standard time and a half where checking rituals are the limitation; stop-the-clock breaks; a separate room; permission to use a hard-copy paper that can be marked; an alternative to a proctoring configuration that penalizes re-reading, revisiting questions, or repeated navigation.

Coursework: extended deadlines; a defined submission protocol that ends the checking loop — a fixed word or draft limit, a stated cut-off, permission to submit without a final review pass; assignments issued early.

Clinical and laboratory settings: planned time for protocols that involve contamination-related triggers; permission to use gloves or hand hygiene beyond the standard without it being remarked on; a defined verification step for medication or dosage checks, so that a documented process replaces an open-ended one.

Attendance: flexibility during a flare, and for treatment appointments, particularly during exposure-based therapy, which is intensive and time-limited.

Course load: reduced load without loss of full-time status; extended time to degree.

Where it goes wrong in professional programs

This is the part that matters most for medical, nursing, pharmacy, dental and therapy students.

Checking behavior in a clinical setting gets read as slowness, indecisiveness, poor time management, or lack of confidence — and those words go into an evaluation. Repeated hand hygiene gets read as odd. Asking a supervisor to confirm something twice gets read as needing excessive supervision.

None of those observations mentions a disability, and all of them can end a placement. Once the evaluation exists, the school treats the resulting decision as an academic judgment, which attracts deference and no hearing.

The protection is documentation in advance. A diagnosis disclosed and an accommodation in place before the rotation begins changes what a supervisor is entitled to write and what the program has to consider before acting on it.

What schools get wrong

“Extended time is for reading disorders.” Extended time is for whatever functionally limits performance under timed conditions. Checking rituals do exactly that, and the request should say so in those words rather than being filed under anxiety.

“Your medication is working.” The beneficial effects of mitigating measures are disregarded by statute. You are assessed as you would be without treatment.

“That is a professionalism issue.” Behavior that is a symptom of a disclosed condition is a disability question first. Raise it as one in writing, and ask the program to identify what specific behavior it is relying on.

Standard time and a half by default. Accommodation is individualised. Where the evaluator’s measurement supports more, ask for more and provide the measurement.

The four rules that decide coverage

The Office for Civil Rights repeats the same boxed statement of how the coverage question is decided in every condition fact sheet it publishes. It comes from the statute, not from the fact sheets, so it applies to every condition equally — including this one. It is short, it is favorable to students, and almost nobody reads it:

  1. The question should not demand extensive analysis. Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is not meant to be a fight.
  2. “Substantially limits” is construed broadly, in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent the statutory language permits.
  3. An impairment need not prevent or severely restrict anything. It is enough that it substantially limits the activity as compared to most people in the general population. And an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.
  4. Medication is disregarded. The beneficial effects of mitigating measures — medication above all — must be left out of the assessment. You are evaluated as you would be untreated.

OCR adds one more line to every sheet that is worth committing to memory: a school may always accept that a student has a disability without any documentation or medical tests. Documentation may be requested. It is not a precondition the law imposes.

And this, which answers the most common self-defeating assumption students make: a student may need modifications even if they are not substantially limited in the major life activity of learning. Good grades do not end the inquiry.

Accommodations for other conditions

The legal test is the same whatever the diagnosis — what matters is the functional limitation and the barrier it creates. These pages cover other conditions:


The law that governs a college accommodation request

Two statutes do the work. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, reaches every school that takes federal money — which is very nearly all of them. The ADA covers the rest: Title II for public colleges and universities, Title III for private ones as places of public accommodation. In the Eleventh Circuit, which governs Florida, claims under the two are analyzed under the same standards.

The regulation that actually decides most disputes is 34 C.F.R. § 104.44, and it is worth knowing what it says on both sides of the line.

What it requires. A college must modify academic requirements where necessary so they do not discriminate — and the regulation names examples: changes in the length of time permitted to complete a degree, substitution of specific courses, and adaptation of how a course is conducted. It requires modified examination formats so that results measure achievement rather than the disability, unless the disability is what the test is measuring. And it requires auxiliary aids — taped texts, interpreters, library readers, adapted classroom equipment.

What it expressly does not require. The same regulation says a college need not provide attendants, individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices or services of a personal nature. A student who asks for a personal aide or a personal reader is asking for something § 104.44 does not oblige the school to supply, and it is better to know that at the outset. The regulation also provides that academic requirements the school can demonstrate are essential to the instruction, or to a directly related licensing requirement, are not discriminatory.

“Otherwise qualified” — and where Florida students lose

Protection runs only to a student who is “otherwise qualified.” Under Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979), that means able to meet the program’s requirements in spite of the disability, and the statute does not require substantial modifications to the program itself. The Eleventh Circuit put it plainly in Goldberg v. Florida International University, 838 F. App’x 487 (11th Cir. 2020): a qualified student is one who can meet the program’s academic standards with or without accommodations.

The recent Florida cases show where that bites. In Nehme v. Florida International University Board of Trustees, 121 F.4th 1379 (11th Cir. 2024), a medical student who failed at least eight courses — five of them after being placed on academic probation — was held not to be a qualified individual, and it counted against him that he conceded he had received proper accommodations for four of the failed exams. In J.A.M. v. Nova Southeastern University, 646 F. App’x 921 (11th Cir. 2016), repeated extended leaves of absence, exam rescheduling and excusal of misconduct were held to be accommodations that would fundamentally alter an osteopathic medicine program.

The practical lesson runs the other way, though, and it is the reason timing matters more than almost anything else: accommodations are forward-looking. A request made after a run of failures is fighting the record those failures created. The same request made before them is a different case entirely.

The school has to actually think about it — the strongest student-side rule

Deference to academic judgment is real. Courts will not override a genuinely academic decision unless it is “such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment” — Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225 (1985) — and courts in Florida give the same respect to a school’s judgment about the qualifications its program requires. But deference is earned, not assumed, and that is where cases are won.

Under Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine, 932 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1991) (en banc) — applied in Florida in Forbes v. St. Thomas University, 768 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (S.D. Fla. 2010), aff’d, 456 F. App’x 809 (11th Cir. 2012) — a school has “a real obligation” to “seek suitable means of reasonably accommodating” a student with a disability, and has to put in a factual record showing that its officials “considered alternative means, their feasibility, cost and effect on the academic program” before concluding that no reasonable accommodation was available. A conclusory assertion, with no evidence of deliberate consideration, is not enough. So the question to ask of any denial is not only “was this decision right?” but “is there any record that anyone actually weighed the alternatives?” Often there is not.

Two further points help. Whether an accommodation would impose an undue burden or fundamentally alter a program is generally a question of fact — Redding v. Nova Southeastern University, 165 F. Supp. 3d 1274 (S.D. Fla. 2016) — which means it is not something a school can simply assert its way past. And to establish fundamental alteration a school has to identify the essential requirement, show that modifying it goes to the core of the program, and show it considered whether any lesser alternative existed.

The interactive process, and a warning about how students lose it

Section 504 and the ADA do not use the phrase “interactive process” for college students the way employment law does, and the Eleventh Circuit has not held in a published decision that failing to engage in one is independently actionable — that remains unsettled. What Florida courts do recognize, from Forbes, is that the process is genuinely two-sided: the student carries the initial burden to identify the disability and make the case for specific accommodations, after which the school must consider the request and make a reasoned decision.

Here is the warning. In Amy v. Florida International University Board of Trustees, 2024 WL 5323717 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2024), the court found that the student broke down the interactive process by insisting on one particular accommodation and resisting any alternative. Where a school does not obstruct the process and makes reasonable efforts to communicate and to accommodate on the information it has, liability does not follow. Refusing every alternative on offer is a way to lose a case that could have been won — ask for what you need, but engage with what is proposed, and put the reasons in writing.

Technical standards

Published technical standards get real deference. Following Southeastern Community College v. Davis, the Eleventh Circuit treats a school’s academic standards as entitled to deference as the statement of the qualifications its program requires: Wood v. President & Trustees of Spring Hill College, 978 F.2d 1214, 1222–23 (11th Cir. 1992); see also Redding v. Nova Southeastern University, 165 F. Supp. 3d 1274, 1285 (S.D. Fla. 2016). They are not untouchable. The Section 504 regulation shields only the academic requirements a school can demonstrate are essential to the instruction or to a directly related licensing requirement, 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(a), so the showing is the school’s to make. And under Wynne, the school has to show that the people responsible actually considered the alternatives — their feasibility, cost and effect on the program — rather than simply pointing to the standard. Courts will not second-guess curriculum or clinical content on a thin record, but a standard that appears nowhere until the moment it is used to exclude a student is a different matter from one published and applied consistently for years.

Retaliation

Asking for accommodations is protected activity, and so is complaining about how a request was handled. A retaliation claim requires protected activity, the school’s knowledge of it, an adverse action, and a causal link — with but-for causation, and the familiar burden-shifting that follows. Retaliation claims sometimes survive where the underlying accommodation claim does not, because they turn on what the school did after the request rather than on whether the student was qualified.

Where to complain, and what it is worth

There are two routes and they are not alternatives you have to choose between carefully — a student may do both.

The Office for Civil Rights. A complaint to the U.S. Department of Education’s OCR must be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory act. It costs nothing and needs no lawyer, though what you put in it matters.

Court. A postsecondary student does not have to exhaust administrative remedies before suing under Section 504 or the ADA. Filing with OCR is not a prerequisite.

On remedies, be realistic. Injunctive relief — reinstatement, the accommodation itself, correction of a record — and attorney’s fees do not require proof of intentional discrimination. Money damages do, generally shown through deliberate indifference: that the school knew of a substantial risk of discrimination and failed to act.

And one recent development that changes what these cases are worth. In Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, 596 U.S. 212 (2022), the Supreme Court held that emotional distress damages are not recoverable under Section 504, because it was enacted under the Spending Clause and funding recipients never consented to that exposure. The Eleventh Circuit extended that to ADA Title II in A.W. v. Coweta County School District, 110 F.4th 1309 (11th Cir. 2024). Earlier Eleventh Circuit authority allowing emotional distress damages, Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, 505 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2007), no longer holds. For most students this means the value of a case lies in getting the accommodation, the place, or the record put right — not in a damages award for the distress of the fight.

This page describes how these rules work in general. It is not legal advice about your situation, and no outcome can be promised in any individual case.

Common questions

Why would OCD need extended time?

Because checking and re-reading consume the clock. The limitation is time, and a timed assessment measures precisely that.

My medication helps a lot. Does that count against me?

No. The statute requires that the beneficial effects of mitigating measures be disregarded in deciding coverage.

My clinical supervisor wrote that I am slow and indecisive. What now?

Raise the disability connection in writing immediately, and ask the program to identify the specific incidents behind the wording before any decision is made on it.

Can I get more than time and a half?

Yes, where the documentation supports it. Ask your evaluator to state the functional limitation and the time it requires.

Should I disclose before a rotation?

In most cases yes. Accommodations are prospective, and a disclosure made after a poor evaluation carries far less weight than the same disclosure made before.

This practice is student-side only

A Students’ Lawyer represents students and families. It does not advise, defend, or consult for colleges, universities, testing agencies, or licensing boards. Knowing how a school is supposed to run this analysis is what makes it possible to show when it has not — where the interactive process was skipped, where an essential-requirement finding was assumed rather than made, where a denial rests on a blanket policy rather than on this student’s documentation. The standard reads the same from either chair. The reason to know it cold is to hold the institution to it.