Massachusetts

That's the first flag on the field, here.

They are well-known for making accommodations of all types. I have a relative who has a lot of experience in college placement who informs me that that school is one that excels at integrating the "differently abled."

So right there, I wonder about the veracity of the young lady's claims.

Keep in mind that the lawsuit is not "what happened." It's what the plaintiff SAYS happened. The school is saying something very different.

We have yet to hear from the roommate--what's one person's "sex in the room" could be another person's cuddling. One person's "sex talk via video" could be "coy flirting."

Further, as someone who knows how Boston area Roman Catholic colleges define "cohabitation"--it's this: You can't "sign in" a member of the opposite sex (which shows how naive THEY are, but that's a separate issue) for more than 23 hours. In by nine, out by eight--otherwise they regard it as a house of prostitution, or something.

We also do not know if this young lady is telling the truth about her conversations with school officials. This lawsuit is just her perceptions--not necessarily what actually happened. She's clearly upset--but is she upset because she had to get a new roommate in her senior year, that her "routine" was disturbed?

Further, she managed to reside at Stonehill for three years with a roommate, so why would "reasonable accommodation" suddenly be a much more expensive single room without any roommate? How about a roommate who doesn't have sex all the time or stay up late?

That said, I would agree with the school that the person who doesn't like the living situation should be the one to move, not the other way around. If you're happy, why should you be inconvenienced?