OCR Letter: University of Virginia

Mr. John T. Casteen
Office of the President
University of Virginia
Madison Hall
Charlottesville, VA 22906-9011

Re: Complaint #11-96-2006

Dear Mr. Casteen:

This letter is to notify you of the determinations made by the U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), regarding the resolution of the above-referenced complaint of discrimination filed against the University of Virginia School of Law (School of Law).

The complainant alleged that the School of Law's March 30, 1995 and April 15, 1996 decisions to deny admission to her was based on her disability. Specifically, the complainant asserted that the School of Law failed to accommodate her in its admissions process by considering the score of a Law School Admission Test (LSAT) that was administered under accommodated conditions. Finally, the complainant alleges that the School of Law discriminates on the basis of disability, race, and national origin by considering LSAT scores as a criterion to award certain academic scholarships, thus, screening out applicants with disabilities, Asians, and Hispanics.

OCR is responsible for enforcing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, as implemented in the regulation found at 34 C.F.R. Part 104, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of mental or physical disability in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department. OCR also has jurisdiction as a designated agency under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 28 C.F.R. Part 35, over complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of disability that are filed against public institutions of education (other than schools of medicine, dentistry, nursing, and other health-related schools) and public libraries. OCR is also responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 34 C.F.R. Part 100 which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in institutions that receive Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (Department). Since the School of Law receives funds from the Department and is a public entity, OCR has jurisdiction over this complaint.

In the process of resolving this complaint, OCR interviewed the complainant and reviewed and analyzed documents submitted by the complainant and the School of Law. As a result of our investigation, OCR has made the following findings of fact:

-- The complainant provided the recipient with two written psychological evaluations dated January 17, 1995 and January 25, 1995. Copies of the complainant's psychological evaluations were submitted to OCR by the recipient. Information regarding the complainant's disability was provided by the complainant's licensed professional counselors to the LSAT/LSDAS, which in turn provided it to the school of law. The evaluations state that the complainant has a learning disability which effects her short-term memory, mathematical skills and her organizational skills. In addition, she was diagnosed as having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

-- Because of these disabilities, it was recommended by the complainant's licensed professional counselors that when tests are being administered to the complainant, additional time be allotted to the complainant for completion of the test and that she be given short rest periods between each section of the test.

-- The complainant initially submitted her application for admission to the School of Law on January 18, 1995. The complainant did not disclose her disabilities to the School of Law when she initially submitted her application for admission. The complainant was denied admission to the School of Law by the Admissions Committee on March 30, 1995.

-- In reviewing the complainant's academic record, it reveals that the two undergraduate institutions that she attended, Northern Virginia Community College and Marymount University, are of a lesser caliber when compared to undergraduate institutions attended by other applicants to the School of Law. Although the complainant's overall GPA was a 3.37, it was a relatively weak average when compared to the averages attained by other applicants. In addition, the majority of her coursework focused on para legal studies, which was not as academically vigorous as to impress the School of Law's Admissions Committee.

The Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), was administered to the complainant on two occasions. In October 1994, the LSAT was administered to the complainant without any accommodations. At this time, the complainant had not yet been diagnosed as having a learning disability or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The complainant's score was 139. The complainant ranked in the llth percentile the first time the LSAT was administered.'

-- The LSAT was administered to the complainant for the second time in February 1995. On this occasion, the complainant requested and was granted an accommodation of additional time. This effort resulted in a score of 147, an increase of eight points over her first score. However, the LSDAS does not calculate percentile ranking when the LSAT is administered under accommodated conditions.

-- In the complainant's letter dated August 5, 1995, the complainant questioned the School of Law's use of her accommodated LSAT score. She contended that since accommodated LSAT scores have not been validated, these scores should not be considered when evaluating the admissions files of those applicants for whom accommodated scores are submitted.

-- In February 4, 1996, the Associate Dean decided to reactivate the complainant's application and resubmit it for the 1996 fall entering class. In addition to resubmitting the complainant's application, the Associate Dean decided to waive the application fee.

-- In a letter dated April 15, 1996, the Admissions Committee again denied the complainant admission to the School of Law. In his letter to the complainant, the Associate Dean indicated that the complainant's entire file had been evaluated for the second time, including her LSAT score. The letter further explained that, although accommodated LSAT scores have not been validated in all formats, it has been determined that these accommodated scores should be evaluated in a different manner and not be totally disregarded. For example, when evaluating admissions applications that are accompanied by LSAT scores administered under accommodated conditions, less weight could be placed on the accommodated score and additional emphasis could be placed on other factors in the applicant's file. This determination resulted from consultations with the Law School Admissions Service (LSAS), and the School of Law's general counsel.

In a letter dated April 17, 1996, from the complainant to the Associate Dean, the complainant again argued that the Admissions Committee should not consider her LSAT score because it was administered under accommodated conditions. In response to this letter, the Associate Dean agreed to have the complainant's application reconsidered for a third time by an Admissions Committee member who had had no prior contact with the complainant's file.

-- In a letter dated May 7, 1996 to the complainant, the Associate Dean informed her that the Admissions Committee reconsidered her application for admission, including additional grades which the complainant had requested be considered. The letter stated that, in evaluating the complainant's file, the Admissions Committee placed less emphasis on the complainant's LSAT score. Consequently, additional weight was placed on other factors in the complainant's file, such as prior academic' history, extracurricular activities, and recommendations. The
letter further indicated that the School of Law was not prepared to comply with the complainant's request that her LSAT score be waived completely.

-- A written statement made by a member of the Admissions Committee indicated that he agreed with the Associate Dean that the complainant's accommodated LSAT score should be given a degree of consideration, but not in the same manner as unaccommodated scores. In addition, this member of the Admissions Committee felt that the complainant's undergraduate record was not impressive and was attained from a less-than-comparative program at an unexceptional institution.

-- For the 1995 entering class, the School of Law received a total of 4101 applications and offered admission to 966 individuals. The total number of applicants for 1995 who informed the Admissions Committee of their disabilities was 53, and the School of Law offered admission to 17 of these individuals with disabilities. For the 1996 entering class, the School of Law received a total of 3782 applications and offered admission to 1012 individuals. The total number of applicants for 1996 who informed the Admissions Committee of their disabilities was 55, and the School of Law offered admission to 18 of these individuals with disabilities.

-- The School of Law indicated to OCR that every application submitted receives at least one careful, complete review by a professional reader. No automatic cut-offs based on Admissions Index, LSAT or GPA are employed. Applications submitted by Virginia residents, such as the complainant, are read on a separate track because they are accorded preferential consideration.

-- According to information submitted to OCR by the School of Law, the Admissions Committee applies the following criteria when evaluating admissions applications: prior academic work accounts for approximately 40% of the decision; the LSAT accounts for approximately 40% of the decision; and the remaining 20% of the decision is based on other criteria, such as work experience, extracurricular activities, and recommendations.

-- The School of Law informed OCR that the Admissions Committee does not have a formal formula by which they adjust an applicant's GPA depending on the quality of the school attended. However, examples of variables considered in this process include quality of the school itself, rigor and coherence of the curriculum selected by an individual applicant, and the degree of grade inflation, or lack thereof, at a particular institution.

-- For the fall class of 1995, the average LSAT score for applicants was 161, and the average score for those who were offered admission was 166; and for the fall class of 1996, the average LSAT score for applicants was 162, and the average score for those who were offered admission was 167.

-- In 1995 there was one applicant who was offered admission and who had a lower LSAT score and GPA than the complainant. In addition, there were 3 applicants who were offered admission who had the same LSAT and a slightly lower GPA than the complainant. In 1996, one student who was offered admission had an LSAT lower than the complainant.

Section 504 prohibits discrimination against qualified persons with disabilities in federally-assisted programs and activities. The regulation implementing Section 504, at 34 C.F.R. 104.42(a), provides that qualified persons with disabilities may not, on the basis of disability, be denied admission or be subjected to discrimination in admission. The regulation further provides, at 34 C.F.R. 104.44(a), that a recipient shall 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 disability, against a qualified applicant with a disability.

The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified persons with disabilities by public entities. The regulation implementing the ADA, at 28 C.F.R. 35.130(a), states that no qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity. The regulation further provides, at 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(1)(i), that a public entity may not, on the basis of disability, deny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service. The regulation, at 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7), requires public entities to make reasonable accommodations in policies, practices, or procedures when 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.

The Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. 104.3(k)(3) defines a qualified person with a disability with respect to postsecondary education services as a person with a disability "who meets the academic and technical standards requisite to admission or participation in the recipient's education program or activity." The regulation implementing the ADA, at 28 C.F.R. 35.104, defines a qualified individual with a disability, in relevant part, as an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity. The School of Law's acceptance of the application from the complainant as complete and its review of the application reveals that the complainant met the standards and requirements to be considered for admission to the School of Law. Thus, the complainant meets the definition of a qualified person with a disability pursuant to 34 C.F.R. 104.3(k)(3) and 28 C.F.R. 35.104.

The investigation disclosed that the complainant's LSAT scores, initially administered without an accommodation (139), and then administered with an accommodation (147), were considerably lower than those students who applied to the School of Law or of those students who were offered admission. In 1995 there was only one applicant who was offered admission and who had a lower LSAT score and GPA than the complainant. However, this applicant's interview score was higher than that of the complainant, and the applicant was a UVA graduate. In addition, there were only 3 applicants who were offered admission who had the same LSAT and a slightly lower GPA than the complainant. All 3 were graduates of a higher caliber school than the complainant. In 1996, one student offered admission had an LSAT lower than the complainant, however, this applicant had earned a 4.0 GPA from a prestigious and highly competitive undergraduate program.

OCR's analysis of the admissions data shows that for the 1995 fall entering class, 23% of all students who applied for admission to the School of Law received offers of admission, however, 32% of those students with disabilities who applied to the School of Law received offers of admission. For the 1996 entering fall class, 26% of those students who applied to the School of.Law were offered admission, and 32% of those students with disabilities who applied were offered admission. Thus, for the 1995 and 1996 fall semesters, the percentage of applicants with disabilities who were offered admission to the School of Law for each year was higher than the percentage of all students who applied and were offered admission to the School of Law.

The investigation further disclosed that, following the initial evaluation and denial of admission in Spring of 1995, the complainant argued against the use of her accommodated LSAT score as a factor in reviewing her application. The Associate Dean decided to resubmit her application for review for the fall class of 1996. When the application was again rejected, the complainant submitted a rebuttal regarding the Admissions Committee's reasons for rejecting her application. The Associate Dean then granted a reconsideration of the complainant's application, and it was submitted to a member of the Admissions Committee for evaluation. This member of the Admissions Committee had no previous contact with her admissions file. Following this review of the complainant's admissions application, another letter of rejection was issued.

In this case, the complainant's application for admission to the School of Law was evaluated on three separate occasions, and on each occasion a letter of rejection was issued.

The Associate Dean, in a note dated April 14, 1996, indicated that: "...In her brief regarding the LSAT, she urges us to focus on her academics and throw out any consideration of the LSAT. Before turning to that point about the LSAT, it must be noted that the academic record is spotty, was achieved at schools which were not of a very high quality and contains a good deal of para legal course work. One semester at Marymount was a 2.8, another 3.78. And the overall Marymount GPA is a relatively weak 3.33 ... " Subsequent to that review, he received some additional grades, which raised her Marymount GPA to 3.37, but did not really negate the point he was making.

Although the School of Law did not provide the specific accommodations requested by the complainant, namely a waiver of the LSAT requirement, the School of Law made a reasonable modification to its admission criteria and procedures in evaluating the complainant's application. Primarily, the modification that was afforded the complainant with respect to the evaluation of her admissions application was a diminished degree of consideration applied to her LSAT score and a greater degree of consideration of other criteria such as GPA, extracurricular activities, and letters of recommendations. Furthermore, current OCR policy provides that recipients will not be held in noncompliance with Section 504 for using test scores indicating that the test was taken under nonstandard conditions as long as the test score is not the only criterion for admission and the individual with a disability is not denied admission because he or she took the test under nonstandard conditions.

OCR concludes that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of a violation of the regulations implementing Section 504, at 34 C.F.R. 104.42(a) and 104.44(a), and Title II of the ADA, at 28 C.F.R. 35.130(a), (b)(1)(i) and (b)(7).

The complainant also alleged that the School of Law discriminates on the basis of disability, race, and national origin by considering LSAT scores as a criterion to award certain academic scholarships, thus, screening out applicants with disabilities, Asians, and Hispanics. The Associate Dean denies that the School of Law uses LSAT scores as a criterion in the awarding of scholarships. The complainant was unable to provide OCR with further information to substantiate this allegation, thus OCR finds that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the School of Law discriminates on the basis disability, race, and national origin by considering LSAT scores as a criterion to award academic scholarships.

I would like to express my appreciation to you and your staff in cooperating with OCR in seeking a resolution to this matter.

If you have any questions regarding these determinations, please contact XXXXX of my staff.

Sincerely,

Evelyn Ramey
Acting Team Leader
District of Columbia Office
Office for Civil Rights