OCR Letter: Bowling Green

OCR DOCKET NUMBER: 05982143
LOF ISSUE DATE: AUGUST 31, 1999
NAME OF SIGNER: James E. Heffernan

Dr. Sidney A. Ribeau
President
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, Ohio 43403-0001

Re: OCR #05982143

Dear Dr. Ribeau:

On July 29, 1998, the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Midwestern Division, Chicago office, received a complaint against Bowling Green State University (the University). In his complaint, the complainant alleged that the University subjected his client (Student A), a student enrolled in the University's Speech-Language Pathology graduate program, to discrimination based on his disabilities (nonverbal learning disability and generalized anxiety disorder) when the University's General Counsel, in a June 9, 1998, letter addressed to OCR's Chicago Office, denied the complainant's February 5, 1998, request for several academic accommodations for his client.

OCR is responsible for enforcing, among other statutes, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance (FFA) from the U. S. Department of Education. OCR also has jurisdiction as a designated agency under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq., over complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of disability that are filed against public elementary and secondary education systems and institutions, public institutions of higher education and vocational education (other than schools of medicine, dentistry, nursing and other health-related schools), and public libraries. Inasmuch as the University is a recipient of FFA from the U.S. Department of Education and a public entity, it is subject to the provisions of the Section 504 and ADA regulations. Therefore, OCR has jurisdiction to investigate this complaint.

Specifically, the complainant alleged that the University denied his request for the following academic accommodations for Student A: (a) a 50% work-load reduction in terms of the number of cases/evaluations he is assigned; (b) report writing accommodations, including additional time (one extra day) to write reports as well as permission to take report-related materials home or the use of a quiet room for writing reports at the practicum site, with access to references and a power supply; (c) allow him to complete the practicum requirement in the New Jersey/New York City area; and, (d) allow him to fulfill the program's child diagnostic hours requirement by placing him in a high school or vocational high school setting.

The complainant filed a separate complaint against the University involving Student A in case # 05-97-2171; relevant information from that case has been considered in this determination.

Background:

Student A was admitted into the University's Master's program in the Department of Communication Disorders in the spring of 1995. The program consists of a series of academic courses with a thesis or non-thesis track and a clinical observation and practicum requirement of 375 clock hours. The clinical requirement is met by a series of practicum courses. The program is designed to meet the academic requirements of and be consistent with the standards of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (ASHA) Certificates of Clinical Competence as well as the requirements for licensure from the state of Ohio as a speech therapist.

The clinical program involves a series of on-campus and off-campus practicum courses ending with an off-campus internship. In both on-campus and off-campus settings, a student should demonstrate and apply the academic knowledge that he or she has mastered in the academic courses. As a student moves to the off-campus practicum setting, the student should handle more and different types of Speech Therapy issues and patients and operate more independently, with less supervision. A student must complete a minimum number of clock hours of practicum experience in various sub areas, such as evaluation and treatment and with both adults and children as clients. The program is to prepare a student to address a wide variety of types of communication problems such as speech or language disorders, both child and adult clients, and to work in various types of service locations, including medical or school settings. The Clinical Handbook specifies that, if a student receives more than one grade of unsatisfactory in a clinical or practicum course, the student can be terminated from the program.

Student A enrolled in the program in the fall of 1995. He successfully completed a series of academic and on campus clinical classes during the fall of 1995 up to the fall of 1996 with grades of A's, B's and satisfactory grades. In the fall of 1996, Student A received three A grades in his academic courses but received an unsatisfactory grade in an off- campus practicum course in a hospital setting. For this course, Student A was not provided with all types of Speech Therapy clients because of his difficulties in the program. In the spring of 1997, Student A received an A grade in an academic course and a second unsatisfactory grade in a clinical internship course at an elementary school setting. In this clinical setting, Student A was provided with a reduced caseload. The clinical supervisors documented in writing Student A's performance problems that resulted in his unsatisfactory grades in his practicums. Late in the spring term, Student A informed University staff that he had been diagnosed with a learning disability at an early age. He provided a diagnostic evaluation that was over ten years old. In a letter dated March 19, 1997, Student A filed a grade appeal that was denied at a later date, in which he generally requested academic adjustments. In May of 1997, the University determined that Student A had received two consecutive grades of unsatisfactory in clinical practicum experiences. This would be grounds for dismissal from the program. The faculty of the graduate program recommended to the Associate Dean of the Graduate College that Student A should be granted a one-year leave of absence to obtain services to prepare him to successfully complete the program or that he be dismissed from the program. This recommendation noted that the faculty had recently been informed that Student A had a learning disability and a social anxiety condition and was seeking intervention. On May 15, 1997, the Associate Dean of the Graduate College forwarded this recommendation in a letter to Student A and informed him that, upon his return, he should provide documentation to verify his disability and identify his requests for accommodations. The letter also stated that the graduate faculty of the program would determine whether the requested accommodations were reasonable and could be implemented. In a letter to the student dated June 12, 1997, the Associate Dean approved a leave of absence for the 1997-98 year.

In a letter dated February 5, 1998, the counsel for Student A wrote to the University and enclosed a copy of a neuropsychological evaluation and an evaluation by a psychologist; both were completed in 1997. The psychologist reported that Student A met the criteria for a nonverbal learning disability and a generalized anxiety disorder. The psychologist requested that Student A be provided the accommodations identified above and that he be allowed to return to the University between September of 1998 and September of 1999 so that he could have adequate time to complete his outpatient rehabilitation to address his disability issues.

On March 5, 1998, the University had a meeting to address Student A's request for accommodations. The Chair of the Department of Communications Disorders, the Director of Clinical Services, the Graduate Coordinator and three other professors on the Graduate faculty were present to discuss the request. OCR interviewed the Chair of the Department of Communications Disorders, the Director of Clinical Services, the Graduate Coordinator, and one of the other professors. Departmental staff also consulted with legal counsel, staff from the Disability Services for Students Office (DSFS) and with various administrators, including the Dean for the College of Health and Human Services before and after the meeting. As discussed above, the underlying program requirements correspond with the standards of ASHA's Certificates of Clinical Competence as well as the requirements for licensure from the state of Ohio as a speech therapist. The graduate faculty extensively discussed the requests.

In an internal memo dated March 10, 1998, the Chair of the Communication Disorders Department memorialized the determinations of the graduate faculty. The graduate faculty agreed to an extension of an additional year for Student A to complete outpatient rehabilitation for his learning disability and anxiety disorder.

With respect to the request for a 50% work-load reduction in terms of the number of cases/evaluations that Student A is assigned, the graduate faculty stated that it was not practical, was difficult to operationalize, created an administrative burden and, most importantly, represented a lowering of expected standards. The memorandum stated that "(S)tudents are expected to demonstrate competency with a workload that simulates the requirements of the speech-language pathologist in a professional setting." OCR confirmed this information in interviews with members of the graduate faculty. OCR also asked whether the present workload could be reduced by 50% but the time for the practicum could be extended so that Student A would complete the same amount of work. The consensus of the graduate faculty was that, based on their professional expertise and experience in the field, such a modification would significantly change the experience and lower the standards for the student. This was in part because the student would not be dealing with the same number or range of clients as other students and his experience would not be duplicating the experience of a speech therapist who must balance a series of obligations and duties in the clinical setting.

With respect to the request to allow Student A to complete the practicum requirement in the New Jersey/New York city area, the graduate faculty decided that the University had a series of local clinical sites available and, given that Student A had had two unsuccessful clinical experiences, Student A must complete two local clinical placements prior to considering placement in a geographic placement of his choice. The graduate faculty explained that the quality, structure and supervision in the clinical placement must meet the University's standards. Student A argued that other students were allowed to find clinical placements in non-local settings, such as Toronto. OCR reviewed documentation on the other students in the program who were allowed to be placed in clinical settings that were not local. OCR found that these students had successfully completed nearby clinical placements prior to being allowed a clinical placement in a non-local site and none of these students had failed two clinical placements.

With respect to the request to allow Student A to fulfill the program's child diagnostic hours requirement by placing him in a high school or vocational high school setting, the graduate faculty stated that "students are expected to demonstrate clinical competency within a variety of professional settings, across a diversity of ages and clinical disorders. Permitting a student clinician to avoid a certain client population is highly irregular and represents a lowering of expected standards of performance." Interviewees stated that it was inappropriate for a student to avoid a specific type of client base, namely, younger children. OCR reviewed documents about the placement of students for clinical hours for children diagnostic hours. One student was placed in a vocational setting but that student had been previously placed in general placements which involved children diagnostic hours.

With respect to the request to grant report writing accommodations, including additional time (one extra day) to write reports as well as permission to take report-related materials home or the use of a quiet room for writing reports at the practicum site, with access to references and a power supply, the University originally stated that the accommodations were not practical considerations. The graduate faculty in the memorandum indicated that a quiet site was often not characteristic of professional settings, would create an administrative hardship and would represent a lowering of expected standards of performance. Interviews with the graduate faculty characterized this as a more complicated issue. Interviewees indicated that, dependent on the specific placement, the time for completing reports for that clinical setting may or may not be an essential requirement. The graduate faculty indicated that there were circumstances, such as a medical setting, where an almost immediate report would be an essential requirement of the program. There are other settings, such as at a school, where a same-day report would not be an essential requirement of the program and an extension of one day could be reasonable. In addition, the University staff indicated that it would need to explore the availability of a quiet room or some other alternative accommodation.

In response to a separate OCR case, the University sent a letter to OCR staff, dated June 9, 1998, which was copied to the complainant. In the letter, the University indicated it could not agree to a reduced practicum workload because it would be a lowering of expected standards. The University agreed to allow Student A the requested time extension for the leave of absence. The University stated that it would defer a decision about accommodations for report writing with various concerns and reservations. The University also stated that, because of the student's two successive unsatisfactory evaluations, it was not appropriate that Student A complete a practicum at a facility unfamiliar to the University. The University indicated that, if Student A has satisfactorily completed two practica, the University would consider a placement in a different geographic location of his choice. Further, the University stated that it could not allow Student A to avoid a particular client population because the Master's Degree and subsequent Certificate of Clinical Competence represent a professional standard of performance. The University indicated that the request for a high school or vocational client base would be a significant variance from accepted academic practice within the discipline and could not be granted.

Analysis and Conclusion:

The complainant in this case has been identified as having a nonverbal learning disability and a generalized anxiety disorder and was admitted to the University's Speech-Language Pathology graduate program. The complainant is a qualified person with a disability under the Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. 104.3 and the Title II regulation at 28 C.F.R. 35.104.

In this specific case, the Complainant requested a series of changes and academic adjustments in relation to the recipient's Speech Therapy clinical program based on Student A's disability. The complainant provided the University with recent detailed evaluations by qualified professionals. The University responded to the request by granting the request for an extension of the leave and asserting that three of the requested modifications would not be provided because they would constitute a lowering of standards and deferring a decision for the fourth request while expressing great reservations about it. Generally, the University asserted that the rejected modifications would lower essential requirements of the Speech Therapy program. At issue in this case is the balance between providing academic adjustments to disabled students to ensure that the requirements of a program do not discriminate and the University's obligation to ensure that all students meet essential requirements needed to successfully complete a program of study.

The following discussion relates directly to the allegations and issues of the instant case. Based on recent court cases, it also provides guidance to institutions on the development of essential program requirements and the institution's appropriate response to requests for academic adjustments when the request involves program requirements.

The Section 504 Regulation, at 104 C.F.R. 104.44 (a), regarding academic adjustments, requires a postsecondary institution to make such modifications to its academic requirements as are necessary to ensure that such requirements do not discriminate against a qualified student or applicant with a disability. The regulation also states that academic requirements that the recipient can demonstrate are essential to the program of instruction being pursued by such student or to any directly related licensing requirement will not be regarded as discriminatory. The regulation implementing Title II of the ADA, at 28 C.F.R. 35.130 (b) (7), states that a public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program or activity.

A key issue is how OCR should review an institution’s determination of whether a specific standard or requirement is an essential program requirement that cannot be modified. OCR cannot require an institution to waive or lessen essential requirements. OCR can require a modification of the requirement, if the requested modification does not lower academic standards, fundamentally alter the nature of the program or impose an undue burden on the College or University, and the modification meets the underlying reason for the requirement.

OCR reviews whether the determination by an institution that a requirement is an essential requirement is educationally rationally justifiable. The requirement should be essential to the educational purpose or objective of a program or class. For example, it may be an essential requirement for a teacher education program that a student complete student teaching to, in part, demonstrate the ability to maintain class discipline and develop lesson plans. In this example, there may not be an appropriate alternative to completing student teaching to demonstrate that the student can maintain classroom discipline. There may be an appropriate alternative for a student to demonstrate the ability to develop lesson plans, such as preparation of lesson plans based on different written factual situations.

The degree of deference accorded the institution on these types of decisions should correspond with the nature of the decision. Courts generally defer to academic determinations by Colleges and Universities based on the expertise of the institution and the right to academic freedom, but may not defer to those institutions regarding non-academic determinations. To the extent that a decision or standard is an academic one, it is entitled to more deference. In general, a determination of the requirements to graduate with a degree in mathematics, law or art is an academic determination. To the extent that a decision at issue is more about the accommodations or academic adjustments that a student needs to complete the requirements in a program, it is not an academic determination and therefore is entitled to less deference. The elements and content of a history test typically are academic determinations. Generally, the academic adjustments that would be appropriate to provide to disabled persons, such as additional time to complete the same history test to compensate for a learning disabled person's reading deficiencies, are not academic determinations. Other examples of academic adjustments might include the amount of time to complete a course or program, unless time is of the essence, and the provision of other testing accommodations, such as a reader or extended time.

OCR may review the process that a postsecondary institution utilizes to determine whether an academic requirement is an essential requirement. Courts indicate that an appropriate process should have the following elements:

The decision is made by a group of people who are trained, knowledgeable and experienced in the area;
the decision makers consider a series of alternatives as essential requirements; and,
the decision should be a careful, thoughtful and rational review of the academic program and its requirements.

An example of this process in the context of a case involving a student teaching program would be that the Dean of Education and a group of experienced staff and professors meet over a period of time to consider a series of options or standards. After a careful, thoughtful review, they develop a group of essential requirements for graduation with a teaching degree that are rationally based on their knowledge of teaching and experience in the field.

OCR strongly recommends that the decision should be documented, including an explanation for the purposes or objectives of the academic program and how the essential requirement is necessary to achieve those objectives. It is very helpful for this to be clearly documented prior to a challenge.

An institution is not required to consider disabled persons when making the original determination of what constitutes an essential requirement. Disabled persons may have a variety of disabilities, including, among others, visual or hearing impairments, learning disabilities, mental disabilities and mobility impairments; further, the severity of the impairment may vary significantly. It may be difficult for an institution to determine essential requirements and then consider if the wide range of disabled persons can meet such requirements. An institution may consider if changes to a curriculum, such as the addition of a mathematics requirement or a language requirement, could adversely affect a group of disabled students. After the proper development of essential requirements, an institution does not have to reconsider the underlying decision each time a request for an academic adjustment or modification is made. An institution should consider if the requirements need modification as time passes. In an area of study, technological advances or theoretical changes in the field may require that the requirements also change.

There typically are two types of essential requirements. Certain requirements are related to an intended course of study to prepare an individual for a type of job or profession, such as doctor, lawyer, truck driver, teacher, nurse, or physical therapist. These requirements are often related to a student mastering certain skills that are believed to be necessary to perform the duties of the job upon completion of the program. Many of the cases involving essential requirements have occurred in cases involving professional educational programs and, specifically, various types of clinical settings. An institution should determine the appropriate or essential requirements for a course of study, not the licensing requirements for a specific jurisdiction, although these requirements may be similar or related. A student who completes a teacher education or graduate Speech Therapy program may have an expectation that this course of study will allow the student to meet the local licensing requirements to be a teacher or a speech therapist. Some students may still want to take a program or course of study, although they could not or do not desire to practice in the field. Requirements for programs leading to licensure in a profession may often be directly related to performing the duties of that profession. Different institutions may develop different essential requirements for their programs. The second type of requirements, such as language requirements, involve liberal arts curricula or requirements for what a “properly educated person should know”.

Upon request by a disabled student for a modification of a requirement, a college or university has an additional duty. At that time, the institution should have a request by an individual with specific disability-related limitations who is requesting specific accommodations or modification(s) to the institution’s academic program. The institution should determine if the requested changes would lower academic standards, fundamentally alter the nature of the program or impose an undue burden on the institution. In making the first portion of this determination, courts indicate that the institution’s process should include the elements identified above and the institution should also:

carefully consider whether appropriate alternatives are available, including a consideration of feasibility and cost;
determine if the essential requirement in question cannot be modified for a specific disabled student; and,
ensure that the determination is not based only on the past tradition of the institution, such as an assertion that we have "always" done this or required this, without a valid basis for the determination.

The requested modifications should not lower academic standards or require substantial alteration of the program. A requirement may be essential but the institution should consider if a disabled student could meet the required aspects of the requirement with modifications or academic adjustments. The institution should focus on the underlying reason for the requirement, and whether an appropriate alternative is available that meets the underlying reason for the requirement. For example, an institution should consider whether, if the underlying reason for a foreign language requirement is to expose a student to different cultures, a disabled student could meet this requirement by taking a course such as Asian history or European or African art and culture. The determination should not be based on inaccurate presumptions, prejudices or stereotypes about disabilities or disabled persons. For example, an institution should not presume that persons who have received counseling cannot withstand the rigors of law school or that a person with a certain type of disability automatically cannot complete a certain program. It may be that a person with a disability cannot meet the requirements for completing a requirement or a program but the individual should be judged on the ability to meet requirements, not on assumptions about the individual's limitations. A disabled student also should be provided with appropriate academic adjustments or auxiliary aids, such as extended time for testing or a quiet environment for testing, if such requests are properly supported by documentation.

To the extent required by the facts and circumstances of the case, the institution should ensure that it has the expertise to evaluate the requestor’s disability appropriately in determining whether alternatives are available. The institution may do this by having a person(s) with such expertise on the group making the determination, consulting with experienced staff available within the institution or obtaining such expertise from outside the institution. In considering whether alternatives are available, the institution should be aware of the range of current auxiliary aids that may be available and also be aware of new technological innovations that may make certain alternatives feasible. The institution also may examine what comparable institutions require, although an institution’s decision is not suspect based on the fact that it varies from that of other institutions. In certain situations, the focus of the inquiry is whether the student can meet the standard which has been determined to be an essential requirement and no reasonable alternative is available.

After a student has been admitted and is requesting an academic adjustment to allow the student to complete the program, it is important that the institution’s decision involve a serious consideration of these issues. It should not be a conclusionary determination that assumes that a disabled person cannot meet essential requirements or that fails to investigate or consider if appropriate modifications are possible or available. Unsupported conclusions, without investigation, that a requested academic adjustment creates an administrative burden or hardship would an insufficient justification for an institution’s decision. On the other hand, a request by a person with a disability for a waiver of an essential requirement or, generally, for a reduction in the amount of work necessary to complete a course or program would not be supported solely because the requestor has a disability. A request for a modification that would significantly reduce the amount of work for a course may lower academic standards and not be required. If an essential requirement of a class involves mathematical computations or spelling, it would not be an appropriate academic adjustment to allow the student to use a calculator or spell checking assistance. In an engineering class, it may be essential that students are able to correctly do mathematical computations so that physical structures, such as a bridge, would not collapse. If mathematical computations or spelling are not essential requirements for a class, use of a calculator or spell checking assistance may be appropriate. Mathematical computations or statistics might not be essential requirements for an art or journalism program.

The institution should investigate whether a requested modification can be provided and if provision of the alternative would meet the program requirements. Institutions should examine whether alternative testing mechanisms or modalities are available. An institution should examine if an extension of the time to complete tasks is appropriate and if a quiet environment to do work is available in the clinical setting. The institution also should consider if another appropriate effective alternative is available. While a reduction in the total caseload for a student may not be an appropriate modification, it may be appropriate to have the student complete the same amount of work but allow the student an extended amount of time to complete the work. A student with a disability may be able to meet a mathematics requirement if allowed two semesters to complete the required material. However, there are circumstances, for example, the training of staff for an emergency room, where speed and time efficiency may be essential elements of performance in the educational program. In certain clinical or practicum situations, it may be an essential requirement that a student demonstrate the ability to apply theoretical knowledge in a practical setting that duplicates the experience of working as a teacher, nurse, speech therapist or other professional. Under those circumstances, persons with a disability should receive accommodations similar to those they would receive if they were employees in the same setting. At some point, an extension of time or reduction of caseload may lessen the academic requirements and not be an appropriate modification. An institution also could set reasonable time limits to complete a course of study or a class based on the underlying educational objectives identified. For example, nursing techniques or knowledge of new medicines may change and a nursing program may want to set a time frame for completion of a program to ensure that a student's knowledge has not become obsolete with the passage of time.

In the final conclusion, the process followed by the institution and the analysis by the institution should be such that the determinations of whether a requirement is an essential requirement and whether the requirement can be modified are rationally justified. OCR recommends that institutions carefully consider what elements constitute the core essential requirements for a program and consistently apply those requirements.

The underlying purpose of Section 504 and Title II of the ADA is to allow persons with disabilities to endeavor to meet their full individual potential in taking advantage of educational opportunities. In implementing the regulations, colleges and universities should carefully and rationally determine the essential requirements or academic and technical standards for a program. Institutions should provide clear notice of such requirements and expectations for programs. Disabled persons may select any program for which they are eligible but are well advised to carefully review program requirements and opt for programs that they are likely to be able to successfully complete. The regulations require such institutions to provide appropriate academic adjustments and make determinations based on a student’s ability to perform as a teacher, truck driver, or liberal arts student instead of making prejudgments or assumptions as to the abilities of students with disabilities. Under Section 504 and Title II, disabled persons should be afforded the opportunity to meet essential program requirements; this is not a guarantee of success.

The complainant requested various modifications or academic adjustments in relation to the recipient's Speech Therapy clinical program based on Student A's disability. The evidence indicates that the graduate faculty of the Communication Disorders program met as a group and carefully considered the request in a thoughtful and rational manner. The graduate faculty, based on their experience and expertise in the field, considered if there were alternatives and responded to the request by granting the request for an extension of Student A's leave of absence. They asserted that three of the requested modifications would not be provided because the modifications or academic adjustments would lower essential requirements of the Speech Therapy program. The University provided evidence to conclude that to allow a significant reduction of workload in a clinical setting, change the quality, structure and supervision of clinical placements and limit the client base to exclude younger children would fundamentally alter or lower educationally justified academic requirements. These requirements were also related to certification and licensing requirements. Therefore, OCR finds that the evidence is insufficient to indicate a violation of the Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. 104.44(a) and the Title II regulation at 28 C.F.R. 35.130 (b) (7) with respect to these three requested academic adjustments.

With respect to the request for additional time to complete reports, allowing Student A to take materials off site while protecting the privacy of clients or to use a quiet room to do reports, interviews revealed that this request raised more complicated questions. The graduate faculty indicated that, in certain clinical settings, such as a medical facility, the time for completing reports was an essential requirement. At other clinical settings such as a school, time was not an essential requirement. If time was not of the essence, the University staff indicated that it would need to explore the availability of a quiet room or some other alternative accommodation.

The University has submitted the enclosed Settlement Agreement to resolve the allegations of the case related to the request for academic adjustments for report writing. This Settlement Agreement, when fully implemented, will resolve this allegation in this complaint. The Settlement Agreement, in part, provides that the University will determine if time is of the essence in a particular clinical setting. It provides that in determining if time is of the essence in a particular clinical setting, the University will utilize a process where the decision is made by a group of people who are trained, knowledgeable and experienced in the area; and the decision will be a careful, thoughtful and rational review of the academic program and its requirements. In making the determination, the University will carefully consider whether appropriate alternatives are available, including a consideration of feasibility and cost; determine if the essential requirement in question cannot be modified for Student A; and, ensure that the determination is not based solely on past tradition of the institution or administrative convenience without a valid basis for the determination. If the University determines that the time for completing reports for that clinical setting is an essential requirement, the University will provide OCR with a report documenting the process for the decision and explaining the determination. If the University determines that the time for completing reports for that clinical setting is not an essential requirement, the University will provide Student A with effective academic adjustments for his disability unless the academic adjustment would constitute a fundamental alteration of the program or an undue burden. Implementation of this agreement will be monitored by OCR to ensure that the terms of the agreement are met.

We would like to thank you and your staff, especially Ms. Nancy S. Footer, General Counsel, Ms. Kristie Campbell of the Office of the General Counsel, and Mr. Marshall Rose, Director, Affirmative Action and Disability Resources, for the assistance provided during our resolution of this complaint. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me or Mr. Daniel Altschul, Senior Civil Rights Attorney, at 312/886-8389 or Ms. Janet E. Bonem, Equal Opportunity Specialist, at 312/886-8390.

Sincerely,

James E. Heffernan
Team Leader

Enclosure

cc: Nancy S. Footer, General Counsel
Mr. Marshall Rose, Director, Affirmative Action & Disability Resources