OCR Letter: Tacoma Community House

Mr. Robert Yamashita
Executive Director
Tacoma Community House
1314 South L Street
P.O. Box 5107
Tacoma, Washington 98405
Complaint No. 10-93-4001

This letter is to notify you that the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has completed its investigation of the above-referenced complaint against the Tacoma Community House (TCH). The complaint alleged that TCH discriminated against a student based on his disability by failing to provide him with interpreter services necessary to accommodate his hearing impairment.

OCR conducted its investigation under the authority of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (Department), and title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all services, programs, and activities of State and local public entities. TCH is a recipient of Federal financial assistance from this Department.
The issue giving rise to our investigation was whether TCH denied the student the benefits of its education program, during January 1993, by failing to provide him with interpreter services necessary to accommodate his hearing impairment in violation of 34 CFR 104.4(d)(1) and (2), and 28 CFR 35.160(b)(1).

OCR has determined that the findings in the investigation support a conclusion that TCH has failed to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the student was not denied the benefits of, excluded from participation in, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in its program in violation of 34 CFR 104.44(d) and 28 CFR 35.160. In addition, OCR has determined that TCH failed to designate an employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with Section 504 and Title II in violation of 34 CFR 104.7(a) and 28 CFR 35.107(a), and failed to adopt Section 504 and Title II grievance procedures in violation of 34 CFR 104.7(b) and 28 CFR 35.107(b).

The OCR findings are based on a review and analysis of the following: written evidence provided by TCH, which included descriptions of TCH programs and services and the student's enrollment and attendance records; interviews conducted with TCH staff and faculty, including administrators and staff members responsible for enrolling and providing instruction to the student; and interviews with the student. OCR made the following findings of fact and conclusion with respect to the investigation:

Findings of Fact

1. TCH is a postsecondary institution that provides basic education to adults. TCH employs 88 staff members.
2. TCH has not designated a responsible employee to coordinate Section 504/Title II compliance activities.
3. TCH has not adopted a Section 504/Title II grievance procedure.
4. TCH does not have written policies and procedures concerning the provision of auxiliary aids and services to students.
5. TCH relies on an informal method of responding to a notice of a student's disability-related need for an educational auxiliary aid.
6. The student, who is hearing impaired, enrolled in adult basic education courses at TCH on December 18, 1992, and started classes on January 5, 1993.
7. The student elected to begin the adult basic education courses without an interpreter and utilized a hearing aid.
8. During the first 3 weeks of class, the student requested an interpreter two times from the adult basic education instructor.
9. The adult basic education instructor responded to the student by saying she would "check into" obtaining an interpreter but did not relay the request to an administrator and did not follow up on the request.
10. TCH did not determine whether the student had a need for an interpreter because the instructor did not pursue the matter. TCH did not provide an interpreter during the student's enrollment in the adult basic education courses.
11. The student stopped attending classes on January 25, 1993, because he did not like the content of the classes. The reason for his withdrawal was unrelated to his disability.

Analysis and Conclusion

The issue giving rise to the investigation was whether TCH denied the student the benefits of its education program, during January 1993, by failing to provide him with interpreter services necessary to accommodate his hearing impairment. 34 CFR 104.44(d)(1) and (2), and 28 CFR 35.160(b)(1).

The regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 CFR 104.44(d)(1) and (2) requires that a recipient shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that no disabled student is denied the benefits of, excluded from participation in, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in its program because of the absence of educational auxiliary aids for students with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills. Auxiliary aids may include taped texts, interpreters, or other effective methods of making orally delivered materials available to students with hearing impairments. The regulation implementing Title II places requirements on public entities, such as TCH, which are comparable to the above-referenced Section 504 requirement. See 28 CFR 35.160. In addition, Title II requires entities to afford persons with disabilities the opportunity to request the auxiliary aids and services of their choice.

OCR found that TCH did not have written policies and procedures regarding the provision of auxiliary aids, rather it relied on an informal method of responding to a student notifying them of a disability-related need. The student made a verbal request for an interpreter, but TCH took no action to determine whether he needed an interpreter and/or to provide him an interpreter. Because TCH's informal method of handling student requests for an interpreter did not ensure prompt consideration of the student's request for a necessary auxiliary aid, TCH failed to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the student was not denied the benefits of, excluded from participation in, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in its program in violation of 34 CFR 104.44(d) and 28 CFR 35.160.

The regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 CFR 104.7(a) requires that a recipient designate at least one person to coordinate its efforts to comply with Section 504. The regulation implementing Title II at 28 CFR 35.107(a) is generally analogous to Section 504, however, 28 CFR 35.107(a) applies only to a public entity employing 50 or more employees, whereas the Section 504 regulation applies to those recipients employing 15 or more persons. OCR found that TCH had not designated a responsible employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with Section 504 and Title II in violation of 34 CFR 104.7(a) and 28 CFR 35.107(a).

The regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 CFR 104.7(b) requires that a recipient adopt grievance procedures that incorporate appropriate due process standards and that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action prohibited by Section 504. The regulation implementing Title II at 28 CFR 35.107(b) is generally analogous to Section 504, with the difference being in the number of employees before the regulation is applicable. Title II requires 50 employees, whereas Section 504 requires but 15 persons. OCR found that TCH has not adopted a grievance procedure that incorporates appropriate due process standards and that provides for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action prohibited by Section 504 and Title II in violation of 34 CFR 104.7(b) and 28 CFR 35.107(b).

TCH and OCR entered into discussions with OCR regarding the areas of noncompliance identified above. As a result of these discussions, TCH has agreed to take the corrective actions as set forth in the enclosed Settlement Agreement (Agreement) to bring itself into compliance with Section 504 and Title II. OCR concludes that with respect to the issue investigated in this case, upon full implementation of the commitments in the Agreement, TCH will be in compliance with 34 CFR 104.7(a) and (b), and 104.44(d); and 28 CFR 35.107(a) and (b), and 35.160. Therefore, we are closing the above-referenced case effective today.

This determination of compliance with Section 504 and Title II is contingent upon TCH's implementation of the commitments set forth in the Agreement. TCH's failure to honor these commitments may result in further action by OCR with respect to this case.

This letter of findings is not intended, nor should it be construed, to cover any other issues regarding compliance with Section 504 and Title II that may exist and that are not discussed herein.

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

Thank you for the cooperation extended to my staff during the investigation of this case. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me or Felix E. Sandoval, Director, Compliance Division, at (206)220-7920.

Gary D. Jackson
Regional Civil Rights Director
Region X