OCR Letter: University of La Verne

OCR DOCKET NUMBER: 09-96-2148
LOF ISSUE DATE: 04/11/97
NAME OF SIGNER: PATRICIA SHELTON

Dr. Stephen C. Morgan
University of La Verne
1950 Third Street
La Verne, California 91750

(In reply, please refer to Docket Numbers 09-96-2148.)

Dear Dr. Morgan:

On June 12, 1996, the U.S. Department of Education, (Department) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) notified you that it had received a complaint from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (complainant), against the University of La Verne (University) alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The complainant alleges that he attempted to obtain academic adjustments needed due to his disability, (slower visual/auditory processing and short term memory deficit). He alleges that the procedures and practices of the University in responding to his request were so slow and inadequate that he was deprived of the opportunity to receive an education equivalent to that provided to nondisabled students.

OCR is responsible for enforcing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, and the Department implementing regulations, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and activities operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance from the Department. Because the District receives assistance from the Department, it is subject to Section 504 and OCR has jurisdiction over this complaint.

In the investigation of this complaint, OCR interviewed the complainant and representatives of the University and reviewed documents submitted by both. This resolution letter contains a summary of the facts gathered during the investigation, the applicable legal standards, and the voluntary resolution plan
agreed upon.

Legal Standards

The specific section of the regulation applicable to this investigation is found at 34 C.F.R. 104.44. This section requires a recipient to make such modifications to its academic requirements as are necessary to ensure that such requirements do not discriminate, or have the effect of discriminating, on the basis of a student's disability. Pursuant to section 104.44(c), recipients are also required to ensure that course examinations are administered in such a way that they measure the achievement of students with disabilities, rather than simply reflecting their disabilities.

Summary of Facts

At the time of this investigation the University had no written procedure governing requests by students with disabilities for academic adjustments needed to accommodate their disabilities.

The Student Handbook for the College of Law (the College) indicated that, within a month of registration, students with disabilities should direct their requests for academic adjustments to the Registrar. The Registrar was empowered by the University to authorize the provision of academic adjustments or, if the Registrar determined that additional information was necessary, forward the request to the University's Director of Learning Enhancement Services (the Director). Neither the University nor the College had procedures available for students with disabilities who wished to appeal a determination about the provision of academic adjustments. In practice, such an appeal would be directed to the University's Vice President for Academic Affairs.

The complainant, who entered the College in August of 1995, did not notify the University or College of his disability until January 29, 1996. At that time he submitted to the Registrar's office a document certifying that he had a learning disability in a specific area and identifying academic adjustments which were needed to accommodate this disability. The suggestions included adjustments while taking exams such as extended time, a test reader to ensure the understanding of directions when necessary, and highlighting words.

The Registrar requested that the complainant resubmit his request in another format, which he apparently did in late February. On April 26, 1996, the Registrar sent the request to the Director. The Director responded in the middle of May. She advised the College Dean that the complainant's disability seemed genuine. The Dean then notified the complainant that he would be entitled to twice the normal time when taking examinations. The University explained that the Dean did not address the complainant's request for a test reader because the instructions for exams are simple and do not vary from course to course. However, an internal memorandum dated April 15, 1996, from the Registrar to the Dean, indicated that the complainant had again requested a test reader, and that there was some confusion about what the functions of such a reader would be. The learning disabilities specialist who had diagnosed the complainant's disability and recommended a test reader was not contacted for clarification.

After the start of the first exam, the complainant again requested a test reader and one was provided. The complainant did not agree that the services provided by the test reader were sufficient. One professor allowed the complainant to use a tape recording of the exam. After a few days the complainant requested a notetaker.

On June 13, 1996, the complainant submitted to the College a statement from a doctor confirming his learning disabilities and recommending the following academic adjustments and auxiliary aids: (a) more time to read and process; (b) tape recorded lectures; (c) a note taker; (d) video and audio tapes; (e) a test reader to review questions and to explain directions. On July 3, 1996, the Registrar notified the complainant that he would be allowed twice the time normally allotted on two upcoming exams in July. On July 9, 1996, the Registrar authorized the following adjustments for the complainant: twice the amount of time for exams, a test reader of the exam instructions and the right to highlight words that might give him trouble.

On July 23, 1996, the University notified the complainant that, because of low overall grades, he was disqualified to continue at the College. However, the College provided him with the option of retaking the exams immediately, or at a later date. He subsequently retook the examinations which he had previously failed, this time with the agreed-upon academic adjustments, and was able to pass them. The University agreed to substitute the grades earned during the second examination administration for his initial failing grades. In a letter dated, September 17, 1996, the University notified the complainant that it would provide him with the following accommodations:

  1. Extended time, up to twice the normal, allotted time for examinations.
  2. A reader who would read examinations to him and highlight portions of them.
  3. Permission to tape record the class sessions to assist his preparation of the course outlines and notes.
  4. A notetaker for classes, if needed.

Section 104.44 requires postsecondary institutions to provide individuals with disabilities with the academic adjustments and auxiliary aids that are necessary to afford them an equal opportunity to participate in the educational program, provided such adjustments do not fundamentally alter the nature of the program. Under applicable case law, when a student requests academic adjustments or auxiliary aids, the school must engage in a process designed to determine the specific adjustments that the individual student requires. Although the regulations do not specify the procedures that recipients must adopt in order to provide academic adjustments, they do implicitly require that requests for adjustments be acted on promptly, so that students receive the modifications they need as quickly as possible.

In this case, OCR was concerned that the University's process for responding to requests for academic adjustments, as implemented in this case, led to undue delays in providing the complainant with necessary academic adjustments. While there is some dispute about the complainant's responsiveness to certain requests for information, it is clear that his request for adjustments, initially submitted in January 1996, was not acted upon until May. OCR was also concerned that the University may have denied the complainant's request for a test reader without fully exploring with the complainant, and the experts he had consulted, about the nature and reasons for his request. It is likely that these problems could have been averted, had the University had clear procedures which outlined the documentation required with student requests for academic adjustments, the steps to be taken in considering such requests (including, where necessary, consultation with the student and/or the specialist who had recommended particular modifications), and timelines to ensure that needed adjustments were provided in a timely manner.

Prior to the completion of this investigation, the University agreed to provide the complainant with the academic adjustments he needed, and to allow him to retake examinations with the those adjustments. OCR determined that based on the University's offer to provide academic adjustments consistent with the requests of the complainant, the issues related to the individual complaint have been satisfactorily addressed. However, OCR worked with the University to develop procedures to address requests for academic adjustments by disabled students in more rapidly and consistently.

During the process of this investigation, the University completed the preparation of written documents entitled Policy for Accommodating Students with Disabilities, and Handbook for Students with Disabilities, which were submitted to OCR for review. Subsequently, OCR and the University held telephone conference calls to discuss and modify the content and wording of the Policy and the Handbook.

The University responded to the concerns with the commitments contained in the attached Voluntary Resolution Plan (Plan). OCR has determined that all outstanding issues raised by the complaint are resolved by the attached Plan. OCR will monitor the implementation of the Plan. As there are no current allegations appropriate for investigation, OCR is closing the resolution portion of the case as of the date of this letter. OCR is informing the complainant of these findings by concurrent letter.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related records on request. If OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personal information that, if released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

OCR wishes to thank Dr. William Cook for his cooperation during this investigation. If you have any questions, you may telephone Ms. XXXXX.

Sincerely,

Pat Shelton, Team Leader
Compliance Division II

Enclosure

 

09962148.LLA

UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE
Docket No. 09-96-2148

Voluntary Action Plan

In order to resolve the issues outstanding in the investigation of the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the above referenced docket number, the University of La Verne (University) voluntarily agrees to take the following actions:

1. By April 1997, the University will revise its draft Policy for Accommodating Students with Disabilities and its Handbook for Students with Disabilities as follows:

1. The section entitled Grievance Policy will be expanded to include timeframes for action at each level; OR will be revised to read as follows:

Should you believe that accommodations have been impermissibly denied, you should bring this matter to the attention of the Assistant Dean immediately. The Assistant Dean will discuss the matter with you, and after hearing your concerns, provide you with a response within 15 working days. If the Assistant Dean is unable to resolve the matter informally, or if you are unsatisfied with the resolution, you may file a grievance with the Dean, who will investigate your concerns and respond within 15 working days. If the Dean is unable to resolve the matter informally, or if you are still unsatisfied with the resolution, you may file a grievance under the University Grievance Procedure for resolving complaints of discrimination.

2. The Policy for Accommodating Students with Disabilities for Enrolled Students and the Students Handbook should be revised to delete Sections 4.1 d. and e. and items 4 and 5 of page 5, respectively.

2. By April 30, 1997, the University will adopt a grievance procedure for the resolution of complaints of disability based discrimination. The procedure will include a thorough investigation of complaints, including an opportunity for the complainant to present evidence, designated timeframes for the investigation and resolution of complaints, notice to the complainant of the disposition of complaints, and the right to file appeals.

By April 15, 1997 , the University will submit a draft grievance procedure to OCR for its review, and will incorporate OCR recommendations in the final procedures.

3. The University will submit a draft of the revised Policy and Handbook to OCR by April 1, 1997, for OCR review and further negotiations, if necessary. The University will forward a copy of the finalized documents to OCR within 30 days of their formal adoption.

4. By April 23, 1997, the University will provide inservice training to the Law School's professors, the Registrar and all administrators, and relevant administrative aides regarding both the University's and the College's grievance procedures, referred to above in #1 and #2, and the nature and manifestations of learning disabilities as they affect students in the educational environment

5. By XXXXX, the University will provide OCR with a list of the presenters of the training and of the (?)

/s/ 4/1/97
(Signature and date)