Lincoln Memorial University has agreed to change religious-accommodation policies at its medical school after a federal investigation found Jewish students were treated differently from students receiving certain nonreligious accommodations.
A federal civil-rights settlement is requiring a Tennessee medical school to change how it handles religious absences after investigators concluded that Jewish students were denied accommodations that were available for certain nonreligious absences.
On September 15, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced a voluntary settlement agreement with Lincoln Memorial University involving its DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine, commonly known as LMU-DCOM.
Federal investigators concluded that during the 2025–26 school year, Jewish students seeking to observe religious holidays were denied opportunities to reschedule classes, examinations, and other academic requirements while comparable requests from non-Jewish students were granted.
The settlement requires the medical school to revise its absence policy, educate students and employees about the new rules, and reverse penalties previously imposed on affected Jewish students.
The case raises a broader question for colleges and professional schools: When an institution allows exceptions to attendance or scheduling rules, how must it handle comparable requests connected to religious observance?
Bottom Line
Lincoln Memorial University resolved the federal investigation by agreeing to change its medical school's absence policy so approved religious absences are treated on the same basis as comparable nonreligious absences.
The agreement does not require the school to eliminate academic requirements. Instead, it requires LMU-DCOM to apply its accommodation policies more consistently, prevent penalties for approved religious absences, and address penalties imposed under the earlier policy.
Editorial Note
This article examines a voluntary federal civil-rights settlement involving Lincoln Memorial University and its DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine.
The findings discussed below were announced by the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Health and Human Services following their joint investigation. New To Education has not independently reviewed every student record, university communication, or accommodation request involved.
The settlement resolves the investigation without a court ruling determining that Lincoln Memorial University violated federal law.
It is also important to distinguish discrimination based solely on religion from discrimination covered by Title VI. Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Federal civil-rights protections may also apply to Jewish and other students when discrimination involves actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.
This article is provided for educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
What Happened
The federal investigation focused on Lincoln Memorial University's DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine.
According to DOJ and HHS, Jewish medical students requested schedule changes during the 2025–26 school year so they could observe religious holidays without missing required classes, examinations, and other academic activities.
Federal investigators concluded that those requests were denied while LMU-DCOM granted similar accommodations to non-Jewish students.
The agencies said the issue became more significant in January 2026. After Jewish students challenged the school's approach, LMU-DCOM adopted a policy stating that religious-observance requests would not be accommodated while continuing to permit excused absences for professional student-leadership obligations and other nonreligious reasons.
DOJ and HHS opened their joint investigation in February 2026.
Seven months later, the agencies announced that Lincoln Memorial University had entered into a voluntary settlement resolving the matter.
What the Settlement Changes
Under the agreement, LMU-DCOM must revise its absence policy so religious observance can qualify for an excused absence on the same basis as comparable nonreligious reasons.
When a religious absence is approved, the student cannot be penalized because of that absence.
The university must also educate students, administrators, professors, faculty, and staff about the revised policy so the rules are understood and applied consistently.
The settlement also addresses what happened before the agreement.
Lincoln Memorial University must reverse penalties previously imposed on Jewish students whom federal investigators determined were wrongly denied religious accommodations during the 2025–26 school year.
That makes the agreement more than a policy rewrite. It requires the university to address consequences resulting from the earlier approach.
Equal Treatment Does Not Mean Eliminating Academic Standards
One of the most important aspects of the case is what the federal government is actually requiring.
The settlement does not say every religious request must automatically override an academic requirement.
Instead, the central issue is whether religious requests are evaluated on the same basis as comparable nonreligious requests.
That distinction matters in professional programs such as medicine.
Medical students may have examinations, clinical responsibilities, laboratory work, simulation exercises, and other requirements that cannot always be moved easily.
A religious accommodation might involve rescheduling an examination, arranging an alternative academic activity, or finding another reasonable way for a student to satisfy the same requirement.
The goal is not necessarily to remove the academic obligation.
The issue is whether students have a fair opportunity to meet it without being disadvantaged because the reason for an absence involves religious observance.
Why Medical Education Makes This More Complicated
Professional schools face scheduling challenges that are different from those in many traditional college courses.
Clinical rotations may depend on hospitals, physicians, patients, facilities, and specific time blocks. Laboratory sessions may require specialized equipment or instructors. Some examinations may need to be administered under controlled conditions.
Medical schools therefore have legitimate reasons to maintain rigorous attendance and academic standards.
But the Lincoln Memorial settlement demonstrates why blanket policies can create problems.
Once a school allows excused absences for certain circumstances, administrators need to consider whether comparable religious requests are being evaluated consistently.
A strong policy should protect both academic standards and student rights rather than treating those goals as opposites.
How Title VI Fits Into the Case
The joint investigation was conducted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.
Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance.
Religion itself is not separately listed as a protected category under Title VI. However, Jewish and other students can receive Title VI protection when alleged discrimination is connected to actual or perceived shared ancestry, ethnicity, or national-origin characteristics.
That distinction matters.
Not every dispute involving religious practice automatically becomes a Title VI violation. The legal analysis depends on the facts, the basis of the alleged discrimination, the institution involved, and the particular federal protections that apply.
In this case, DOJ and HHS jointly investigated the treatment of Jewish students and resolved the matter through a voluntary agreement.
Why Section 1557 Matters
The involvement of HHS also reflects the medical-school setting.
Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination in certain federally funded health programs and activities and incorporates protections from several federal civil-rights laws.
Medical schools and health-professions programs can therefore operate at the intersection of higher-education rules and health-care civil-rights requirements.
For universities, that means policies involving attendance, clinical training, accommodations, and student participation may need to be considered from more than one compliance perspective.
What This Means for Colleges and Universities
The Lincoln Memorial settlement provides a practical lesson for institutions beyond LMU.
Colleges should examine whether their accommodation policies are internally consistent.
If an institution permits excused absences for student leadership, professional conferences, athletics, medical appointments, emergencies, or other approved circumstances, administrators should understand how comparable religious requests are evaluated.
The question is not necessarily whether every type of absence must receive identical treatment.
The more important question is whether differences are based on legitimate educational needs rather than unequal treatment of particular students.
Written policies also matter.
A system in which individual professors make completely independent decisions can produce inconsistent outcomes across departments and courses.
A clearly written institutional process gives students, faculty members, and administrators a common framework.
What This Means for Faculty
Faculty members are often the first people to receive accommodation requests.
That can place instructors in a difficult position if they are responsible for enforcing attendance and academic standards without clear institutional guidance.
Schools can reduce that problem by establishing straightforward procedures.
Faculty members should know where accommodation requests are submitted, who determines whether an absence is excused, how make-up work should be handled, and when an issue should be referred to student affairs, compliance personnel, or another designated office.
That protects instructors as well as students.
An individual professor should not have to create the institution's civil-rights policy each time a scheduling conflict arises.
What This Means for Students
Students seeking religious accommodations should generally make requests as early as reasonably possible, particularly when religious holidays are known well in advance.
Early notice can make it easier for institutions to arrange alternative examinations, assignments, clinical experiences, or other academic requirements when appropriate.
Students may also benefit from keeping written records of important communications involving accommodation requests.
Those records can clarify what was requested, when the request was submitted, what alternatives were discussed, and what decision the institution ultimately reached.
An accommodation does not necessarily eliminate a student's academic responsibilities.
Its purpose is generally to provide a reasonable way to satisfy those responsibilities without unequal treatment.
The Bigger Picture
The Lincoln Memorial case sits within a broader national discussion involving civil rights, religious identity, antisemitism, discrimination complaints, campus policies, and institutional responsibility in higher education.
Those subjects can become politically charged very quickly.
Individual legal disputes, however, often depend on narrower questions.
What policy was applied? Were comparable students treated differently? What reason did the institution give? Which federal law applies? What corrective action is appropriate?
Those questions provide a more useful legal framework than treating every campus dispute primarily as a political conflict.
What Happens Next
Lincoln Memorial University must carry out the commitments required by the settlement, including revising its absence policy, educating students and employees about the changes, and reversing the penalties identified by federal investigators.
DOJ and HHS said the university will remain eligible for federal funding because of its cooperation.
The agencies will close their investigation after LMU completes its commitments under the agreement.
Because the dispute was resolved through settlement rather than litigation, the agreement does not produce a court judgment deciding the underlying claims.
Its broader impact may instead come from how other universities review their own accommodation policies after seeing the federal response in this case.
Why This Matters
Religious accommodation may appear to be a narrow scheduling issue until a student is required to choose between an academic obligation and a sincerely observed religious holiday.
Universities have legitimate reasons to maintain demanding academic standards, particularly in programs preparing future health-care professionals.
Those standards and religious accommodation do not have to conflict.
A strong policy explains when accommodations are available, how requests are evaluated, and how students can complete required work without receiving an unfair advantage or suffering an unnecessary penalty.
The Lincoln Memorial settlement shows how an everyday administrative policy can become a federal civil-rights issue when it is applied inconsistently.
Key Takeaways
- DOJ and HHS announced the Lincoln Memorial University settlement on September 15, 2026.
- The case involves the university's DeBusk College of Osteopathic Medicine.
- Federal investigators concluded that Jewish students were denied religious accommodations while comparable requests from non-Jewish students were granted.
- LMU-DCOM must revise its absence policy and allow religious absences on the same basis as comparable nonreligious absences.
- Students cannot be penalized for an approved religious absence.
- The university must educate students and employees about the revised policy.
- LMU must reverse penalties previously imposed on affected Jewish students.
- The agreement is a voluntary settlement, not a court judgment.
- Lincoln Memorial University will remain eligible for federal funding while completing its settlement commitments.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did a court find Lincoln Memorial University guilty of discrimination?
No. The matter was resolved through a voluntary settlement agreement with DOJ and HHS. There was no court judgment determining liability.
Does the settlement require LMU-DCOM to approve every religious absence?
No. The agreement requires religious absence requests to be handled on the same basis as comparable nonreligious requests. Academic requirements may still apply.
Will Lincoln Memorial University lose federal funding?
No. DOJ and HHS said LMU will remain eligible for federal funding because of its cooperation. The agencies will close the investigation after the university completes its commitments.
Final Thoughts
Religious-accommodation policies are usually written in the language of attendance, examinations, make-up work, and excused absences.
Behind those administrative rules, however, are questions about equal treatment.
Universities can maintain demanding academic standards while providing reasonable pathways for students to observe their faith.
The stronger approach is to establish clear rules, apply them consistently, and make sure faculty and students understand how accommodation requests are evaluated.
The Lincoln Memorial settlement shows what can happen when that consistency breaks down.
For colleges and universities, the lesson is practical: accommodation policies should be clear, defensible, and reviewed before an individual scheduling disagreement develops into a federal civil-rights investigation.
Support New To Education
New To Education provides educational news, legal analysis, practical resources, tutoring support, and learning tools for students, educators, families, and lifelong learners.
Support helps New To Education continue expanding free educational content, tutoring access, AI and smart-learning tools, education resources, website and app development, and new platform features.
Related Articles
Federal Judge Dismisses Harvard Title VI Case, Clarifying Limits of Ongoing Civil-Rights Enforcement
This New To Education article examines another higher-education civil-rights dispute involving Jewish and Israeli students and explains the distinction between allegations of misconduct and the legal requirements for establishing an ongoing Title VI violation.
California Student’s Antisemitism Lawsuit Tests School Duties During Political Conflict
This New To Education article examines how federal civil-rights protections can apply when alleged discrimination or harassment involves shared ancestry, ethnicity, or national-origin characteristics.
New Federal Civil-Rights Rule Could Make School Discrimination Harder to Prove
This article examines changes in federal Title VI enforcement and explains some of the distinctions between intentional discrimination, disparate effects, and federal civil-rights investigations.
NTE Coverage Standard
New To Education prioritizes primary government records, court decisions, legislation, official datasets, settlement agreements, and original research when reporting on education law and civil-rights matters.
A federal investigation, agency finding, voluntary settlement, court ruling, and final judgment are not interchangeable.
In this case, DOJ and HHS announced findings from their joint investigation, and Lincoln Memorial University entered into a voluntary settlement requiring policy changes and corrective action. The agreement resolved the investigation without a judicial determination of liability.
New To Education also distinguishes discrimination based solely on religion from discrimination involving race, color, national origin, shared ancestry, ethnicity, or other legally protected characteristics because different laws may apply depending on the facts.
This article is provided for educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources
U.S. Department of Justice — September 15, 2026
The Justice Department's official announcement provides the primary federal account of the investigation, settlement requirements, revised absence policy, reversal of penalties, and LMU's continued eligibility for federal funding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — September 15, 2026
HHS provides its official account of the joint investigation, policy changes, and federal civil-rights framework involved.
