following a consistent pattern of intransigence, she acted as if she controlled access to her classroom, which is obviously incorrect as to PW, who had a right to attend her class. She openly and intentionally obstructed a KSU administrator's attempt to negotiate a resolution of the situation. Her actions were uncooperative, rude, and unjustified. Her behavior in this instance alone merited a significant sanction.

Petitioner Was Not Asked to Change Her Class Format to Accommodate Disabled Student

20. Dr. Stokes argues that, “[t]he Supreme Court has ruled that an institution of higher learning does not need to change their curriculum to accommodate a student with a disability.”13
21. Again, Dr. Stokes attempts to confuse the issues. PW did not ask Dr. Stokes to “change her curriculum.” As the facts showed, he accepted the format of her class and requested only that he be afforded a note taker, which Dr. Clark had granted.
22. This argument of Petitioner's is without merit.

KSU Was Not Required to Impose Progressive Discipline

23. The Petitioner cites non-binding authority, Trimble v. W. Virginia Bd. of Directors, 209 W. Va. 420, 549 S.E.2d 294 (2001), in support of her argument that “a college should not have fired [a tenured professor] before resorting to other progressive disciplinary measures.”14 This only vaguely states the holding of that case. When stated correctly, the case holding is distinguishable on its facts.

13 Petitioner's Post-Hearing Argument, page 5.

14 Petitioner's Post-Hearing Argument, page 13.

39