OCR Letter: Depaul University

Complaint No. 05-89-2029
May 18, 1993


President
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois

The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has completed the investigation of the above-referenced discrimination complaint against DePaul University. The complainant, a former student in the University's College of Law, alleged, in effect, that the University discriminated against her by excluding her from its law school program on the basis of her learning disabilities.

Facts

The complainant has suffered from learning problems throughout her educational career, but was never evaluated for learning disabilities prior to entering law school. She has never received special education services. The complainant's learning problems have included difficulty in completing tests, retaining information, reading, and writing. She has always reversed numbers and has had to review her work constantly. The complainant told OCR that, because of her learning problems, she at first earned inconsistent grades in school but began to be successful by devoting long hours to her studies.

The complainant applied for admission to DePaul's College of Law on January 5, 1987. In a personal statement submitted with her application, the complainant informed the College that she was dyslexic but also stated that 'the only time this disorder has ever hindered me was when taking the LSAT ....

The complainant was admitted to the College of Law in February 1987 and began enrollment as a full-time student in the day division on August 17, 1987. At that time, she did not request academic adjustments.

The complainant informed OCR that she experienced considerable difficulty in completing all the required reading assignments in her fall 1987 courses. She stated that she had not foreseen the difficulties which her learning problems would pose in law school ....

On February 3, 1988, the complainant met with the Assistant Dean of Students at the law school. The Assistant Dean's notes of the meeting indicate that the complainant had dyslexia and that the complainant experienced difficulty in her fall semester courses because of her slow reading and writing. The Assistant Dean's notes further indicate that the complainant requested extended examination time for her spring 1988 courses. The Assistant Dean stated at this meeting that she would withhold making a decision regarding the complainant's request until after the DePaul learning strategies clinic completed its diagnostic testing and evaluation.

The Assistant Dean stated that she received the complainant's first semester grades on February 8, 1988 .... Her grade point average (GPA) for the fall semester was 1.562 out of a possible 4.0. The Assistant Dean sent the complainant, along with approximately 100 DePaul law students, a letter placing her on academic probation for failure to maintain a 2.0 GPA.

The complainant received [her] second semester grades. Her semester GPA rose to a 1.909. Her cumulative GPA for the first year was 1.703.

She received a letter dated June 30, 1988, informing her that because her cumulative GPA fell below a 2.0. she was academically dismissed from the law school ...

On July 25, 1988, the complainant submitted her petition for readmission. A five member faculty readmissions committee from the College of Law, appointed for the academic year by the Dean of the law school, denied her petition in August. Of the 33 petitions decided in August, 13 were granted and 20 denied.

Under the law school's 1988 written procedures, petitions for readmissions are judged 'to determine if the student has the potential and motivation to complete the requirements for the Juris Doctor degree successfully.'

OCR interviewed all members of the August 1988 Readmissions Committee. The Readmissions Committee members informed OCR that they received no training prior to sitting on the committee. They received no instructions about how to handle a petition which could raise an issue under Section 504; other than one committee member who had done some legal work in the elementary and secondary area of the Section 504 regulations, the members had no prior background or training in the application of Section 504. The complainant was the only summer 1988 petitioner identified as handicapped by the recipient. A committee member who has served on the Readmissions Committee since December 1986 stated to OCR that in her experience as a committee member the complainant was the first petitioner attributing academic failure to the effects of a learning disability.

No committee member remembered who had been assigned the lead responsibility on the complainant's petition. The Chairman of the committee could not recall either his own vote, or any of the reasons behind the committee's decision. Other committee members testified that it was the Chairman's general practice only to vote in the case of a tie; therefore, it is probable that he did not vote on the complainant's petition. One other committee member did not recall his own vote but recalled reasons behind the committee's decision. Three of the members recalled voting not to readmit the complainant and also had some recollection of the committee's reasons for the decision.

No member of the committee spoke to any experts in the field of learning disabilities or a contacted any representative of DePaul's learning strategies clinic. One committee member recalled the committee having extensive discussion regarding the complainant's petition, while another committee member recalled that it was disposed of easily without much discussion.

Of the four committee members who recalled something of the committee's deliberations on the complainant's petition, all four remembered considering the academic adjustments provided to the complainant in her second semester, though none remembered noticing or discussing that these adjustments were put into effect only three and one-half weeks prior to the end of the semester.

Analysis

Is the complainant a handicapped person?

Under Section 504's implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. s 104.3(j)(1) a handicapped person is defined as a person who has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities. Under s 104.3(j)(2)(i) a physical or mental impairment includes 'specific learning disabilities,' and under s 104.3(j)(2)(ii), major life activities include learning. The evaluation of the complainant by the DePaul learning strategies clinic clearly shows that the complainant suffers from learning disabilities in the areas of visual discrimination, visual memory, and visual-motor integration. Her learning disabilities substantially impaired learning. She is therefore handicapped.

Is the complainant a qualified handicapped person?

To be qualified with respect to postsecondary educational services, Section 504's implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. s 104.3(k)(3) requires that a handicapped person meet the academic and technical standards requisite to admission or participation in the recipient's education program or activity. The complainant met the admission requirements for DePaul's law school in 1987, when the recipient admitted her to the program. As a student academically dismissed for the first time, she was eligible to apply for readmission. The complainant was a qualified handicapped person under 34 C.F.R. s 104.3(k)(3) because she met all requirements for consideration as an applicant for readmission.

Did the recipient exclude the complainant from its law school program on the basis of her learning disabilities?

OCR finds that DePaul's dismissal of the complainant, and its failure to properly consider her learning disabilities when evaluating her petition for readmission resulted in her discriminatory exclusion from the law school program. The recipient's denial of her readmission petition was based on improper consideration of her handicap rather than a nondiscriminatory application of the readmission criteria.

An analysis of the committee's decision on the complainant's readmission petition demonstrates that the committee denied the complainant's petition based on stereotypical assessments of the complainant's abilities and prospects and that the committee failed to properly take into account the complainant's ability to succeed by relying upon new learning strategies and effective academic adjustments. The Readmissions Committee members received no training in how to handle a petition which raised a handicapping condition. The committee received no special instructions regarding how to consider the complainant's handicap and the extent to which she had been able to demonstrate her ability to succeed in the program prior to her dismissal. Furthermore, no member of the committee spoke to any experts in the field or any representative of the DePaul Learning Strategies Clinic. The committee members, therefore, did not recognize the relevance of the amount of time allotted the complainant for the development of learning strategies and the use of academic adjustments. Thus, though the Dean's March 30 memorandum appeared in the complainant's file, not one committee member remembered discussing the short length of time during which the complainant had been provided academic adjustments. The facts show that the committee did not make a fully informed decision on the effectiveness of the partial adjustments provided the complainant in light of the delay in allowing her to reduce her course load.

Additionally, not one committee member remembered discussing the rise in the complainant's GPA, from a 1.562 for the first semester, without any academic adjustments, to a 1.909 for the second semester, with some academic adjustments, for a cumulative GPA of 1.703.

A comparison of the complainant's petition to petitions filed by nonhandicapped students demonstrates that the complainant was at least as qualified as nonhandicapped petitioners who were granted readmission. Furthermore, a comparison of the committee's decision regarding the complainant to the committee's decision regarding nonhandicapped students demonstrates that the committee applied the readmission criteria with greater leniency to nonhandicapped petitioners.

For purposes of example, OCR's findings regarding the committee's application of the foreseeability element of the first readmission criterion is set forth in greater detail. In her petition for readmissions, the complainant claimed that her academic failure was due to the manifestation of her learning disabilities in the law school setting. Two committee members stated that this circumstance was not unforeseeable. One relied on the ophthalmologist's letter in the complainant's file, despite the ophthalmologist's complete lack of qualification in the area of learning disabilities and despite the fact that the complainant had submitted to the committee a copy of the current written report of the extensive learning disabilities evaluation conducted by experts in the recipient's own clinic. In doing so, the committee member relied on an uninformed misimpression that an ophthalmologist's assessment of a learning disability should be given as much or more credence than a learning disabilities clinic's assessment. Another committee member stated that the complainant knew she was dyslexic but it did not present a problem in her undergraduate work or the LSAT. The committee member argued that the complainant's condition did not really interfere with learning in the past, and was 'now just an excuse for her poor grades.' This position is based on a stereotypical perception that all handicapped persons should have realized the extent of their handicaps before beginning a graduate level education or they are not really handicapped.

The rigid manner in which the foreseeability element of the first criterion was applied to the complainant contrasts to the leniency with which it was applied to nonhandicapped petitioners. For example, the committee voted to readmit a student though, as described in her petition, the crisis which allegedly triggered her stress reaction occurred before she began law school and she never sought counseling throughout her first year of law school. The committee granted readmission to a student whose petition alleged 'difficulties with the academic rigors of law school,' a situation which would probably describe every petitioner for readmission and hardly seems to amount to an unforeseeable and uncontrollable circumstance. The committee also voted to readmit a student who alleged that his failure was caused by his 'poor study habits,' a problem which one could easily assume would be foreseeable before entering law school.

Based upon the weight of the evidence OCR finds that the University discriminated against the complainant on the basis of her handicap. The Readmissions Committee improperly considered her handicap and failed to assess her individual ability to succeed in the program through the nondiscriminatory application of the readmission criteria. The University's actions violated 34 C.F.R. ss 104.4(a) and (b), 104.43(a) and (c).