A federal judge denied the University of Colorado’s request to dismiss a medical professor’s disability discrimination lawsuit, which alleged that the school suspended her because it perceived she was cognitively impaired. 

Robin Slover, a professor of clinical practice in anesthesiology at the CU Anschutz Medical Campus who has worked for the university on-and-off since 1975, leveled a variety of accusations against her employer. She asserted that she experienced discrimination based on her age and religion, and she was subjected to a hostile work environment.

Last month, U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews determined that Slover alleged one plausible legal claim against CU – that she experienced discrimination because the school believed her mental faculties were slipping.

Slover brought her discrimination allegations pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a precursor to the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition to covering disabilities that affect major life activities, the law also bars discrimination against someone who has a perceived disability.

“Plaintiff has alleged the university believed her to be in cognitive decline,” Crews wrote in a March 20 order. “Indeed, even after plaintiff successfully passed the cognitive exam and was cleared to return to work without restriction, the complaint alleges the university continued to believe and treat her as being disabled and limited in her abilities, going so far as to suspend and later terminate her employment because it continued to perceive her as being in cognitive decline and incapable of performing her job.”

Slover, who was 70 years old at the time she filed her lawsuit in 2021, helped to organize the first chronic pain clinic for CU. She was an associate professor in CU’s Department of Anesthesiology when, in July 2018, Clinical Director of Pediatric Anesthesiology Thomas Majcher brought to Slover’s attention troubling allegations against her. Slover had reportedly been sleeping in her office, missed appointments and confused the names of patients.

To Majcher, the reports allegedly indicated problems with Slover’s memory and ability to perform her work. Majcher placed Slover on a 30-day leave and required her to undergo an evaluation with the Colorado Physician Health Program. Slover acknowledged that she had “on occasion rested in her office” but that doing so “did not interfere with patient care or clinic operations.”

According to the lawsuit, Slover’s mandated evaluation resulted in a perfect score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. The evaluating physician found “no evidence that Dr. Slover suffers from a medical or psychiatric condition” and recommended against further screening for dementia.

Despite her medical clearance to return to work, Majcher allegedly refused to reinstate her for the remainder of her 30-day suspension. Afterward, Slover was “subjected to microscopic scrutiny” by coworkers attempting to catch her napping on the job, she claimed.

In January 2019, Majcher allegedly emailed the medical vice president of Children’s Hospital Colorado, where Slover worked on the CU Anschutz campus, asserting Slover suffered from cognitive decline. He testified in support of that position at an administrative hearing even though, Slover alleged, he had no professional expertise that could back up such an assessment.

The governance committee for the hospital suspended Slover’s medical staff privileges and CU subsequently placed her on unpaid leave in June 2019.

In asking Crews to dismiss the case, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, representing CU, asserted the school had not violated the Rehabilitation Act because Slover had never asked for accommodations for her disability. Therefore, the university could not be accused of failing to accommodate her.

Slover disputed that characterization of her claim. CU was the party that had perceived her to be cognitively disabled, her lawyers noted. Therefore, Slover herself had no need to ask for an accommodation.

“It is absurd to allege that an individual with a perceived, rather than actual, disability would be required to request a reasonable accommodation for a disability from which she does not suffer,” wrote attorney David B. Seserman.

Crews acknowledged that Slover had muddied the issue by including unrelated statements about her hearing loss in her complaint, which Slover did consider a disability. Instead, Slover’s claim under the Rehabilitation Act alleged discrimination due to her perceived cognitive disability, and the magistrate judge rejected CU’s attempt to “shoehorn this case into one for failure to accommodate.”

At the same time, Crews granted the university’s motion to dismiss Slover’s other claims, including that she experienced employment discrimination because of her membership in the Mormon church and was subjected to a hostile work environment. Crews allowed Slover to refile those claims, however, indicating she may be able to put forward plausible violations of employment discrimination law.

Although Majcher was previously a defendant, the parties agreed to dismiss him from the lawsuit in August.

The case is Slover v. University of Colorado.