OCR Letter: Yale University

Dr. Benno Schmidt
President
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut 06520
Complaint No. 01-91-2040

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has completed its investigation of the above-referenced complaint, which was filed with this office on May 21, 1991. This complaint was filed under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, as amended, and its implementing regulation found at 34 C.F.R. Part 104 (Section 504). Specifically, the Complainant alleged that Yale University (the University) discriminates against handicapped persons because the University's performances at Sprague Memorial Hall are inaccessible to handicapped persons.

OCR is responsible for enforcing Section 504, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities receiving or benefiting from Federal financial assistance extended by the U.S. Department of Education. OCR has determined that the University is a recipient of such assistance and is, therefore, subject to the provisions of Section 504.

Accordingly, OCR investigated the following issue:
Whether the University discriminates against handicapped persons by failing to ensure that its performances at Sprague Memorial Hall are accessible to handicapped persons. [34 C.F.R. Sections 104.22(a) and (b) and 104.23(a), (b), and (c)]

Pursuant to OCR's enforcement responsibilities, OCR investigated the issue by conducting interviews with the University's General Counsel, Associate General Counsel, and the Director of Facilities Planning. An on-site facility and program access review was also conducted.

Based on the evidence, OCR concluded that the University's performances at Sprague Memorial Hall are not readily accessible to handicapped persons, in violation of Section 504.

OCR's findings with respect to the issue are as follows:

Legal Standards

OCR's regulations implementing Section 504 contain two separate legal standards for determining whether programs, activities, and facilities are accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. One standard applies to "existing" facilities (i.e. those facilities constructed prior to June 3, 1977), and the other standard applies to "new" construction and alterations (i.e. those facilities or portions of facilities constructed after June 3, 1977).

The regulation regarding "existing" facilities found at 34 C.F.R. Section 104.22 states that where a recipient operates a program or activity in an "existing" facility, the program or activity, when viewed in its entirety, must be readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. A recipient may comply with these requirements through such means as redesign of equipment, reassignment of classes or other services to accessible buildings, assignment of aides to beneficiaries, home visits, delivery of health, welfare or other social services at alternate accessible sites, alteration of existing facilities and construction of new facilities in conformance with the requirements of 34 C.F.R. Section 104.23, or any other methods that result in making its programs or activities accessible to handicapped persons.

The regulation regarding "new construction" found at 34 C.F.R. Section 104.23 states that each facility or part of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the uses of a recipient shall be designed and constructed in such a manner that the facility is readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons, if the construction was commenced after June 3, 1977, the effective date of the regulation.

Findings of Fact

In its response to OCR's data request the University stipulated to OCR that performances at Sprague Memorial Hall were inaccessible to handicapped persons (the University also provides public notice that programs offered at Sprague are inaccessible). OCR's on-site review confirmed the inaccessibility of Sprague Memorial Hall. The on-site, conducted on September 25, 1991, included a review of the performance hall at Sprague Memorial Hall, and the auditorium at William H. Harkness Hall which was identified as a possible alternative location for some faculty and student performances. Although Harkness was proposed as a potential site for the relocation of some concerts that would otherwise be performed at Sprague Hall, this option has not been fully explored or developed by the University.

The following is a summary of the results of OCR's on-site accessibility review.

Sprague Memorial Hall

Sprague Hall is a 4-level facility originally constructed in 1917. Renovations completed in 1955 to 1990 included the addition of a library (1955), installation of a book storage area (1968), installation of a thermostat system (1974), installation of storm windows (1981), roof replacement (1984), a crawl space for stage lighting (1987), new stage lighting (1988) and installation of safety features--sprinklers, exit signs, and lights (1990). Although some of the renovations were completed after June 3, 1977, they were additions that did not modify areas for public use. Consequently, the requirements for existing facilities found at 34 C.F.R. Section 104.22 apply.

OCR found that the performance/concert hall of Sprague is accessed by the main entrance on College Street. The entrance is inaccessible because of stairs and a step at the entrance threshold. The performance hall, which is on the second level, is also inaccessible because of stairs. With the exception of the performance hall not having a specific location for wheelchairs, the concert hall entrances, platform at the interior side of the doors, and aisles are accessible to handicapped persons. Toilet rooms for men and women attending performances at Sprague are entered at the lobby or first floor level, but are actually located at the basement level. OCR found the toilet rooms inaccessible because of stairs. We also found that toilet stalls lack grab bars and maneuvering space.

William H. Harkness Hall

In the University's response to OCR's data request, Harkness was identified as a possible alternative accessible site for some student and faculty performances and concerts. Harkness was constructed in 1927. Recent renovations (1991) included the installation of an elevator tower, an elevator, toilet rooms, power assisted entrance doors, external ramps at the north and south entrances, an interior ramp to access the stage of the auditorium, modifications to the auditorium doors' hardware, warning systems, and renovations to the auditorium seating for wheelchair locations. With the exception of excessive pressure to operate 2 of the 3 entrance doors to the auditorium (upper and middle doors), OCR found all installations (elevator, toilets, auditorium ramp), modifications (auditorium door hardware and warning systems), and renovations (auditorium wheelchair locations) to the Harkness auditorium accessible and usable by handicapped persons. Although Harkness was identified by the University as a possible accessible location for certain faculty and student performances and limited concert use, OCR determined that it would not provide accessibility to all performances currently offered to non-handicapped persons at Sprague. Because of the different seating capacities (Sprague--728 and Harkness--250), Harkness Hall could not serve as a place for the relocation of heavily attended performances at Sprague Hall.

Conclusion

OCR concluded that the previously cited deficiencies, taken collectively, make the University's performances held at Sprague Hall inaccessible to handicapped persons, in violation of 34 C.F.R. Section 104.22.

On October 3, 1991, OCR completed negotiations with the General Counsel. As a result of these negotiations, the University signed a Compliance Agreement (copy enclosed) and voluntarily agreed to take corrective actions to correct the violations.

Based on the University's written assurance that the remedial actions set forth in the Compliance Agreement will be completed by October 31, 1992, OCR considers the University to currently be fulfilling its obligations under 34 C.F.R. Sections 104.22(a) and (b) and 104.23(a), (b), and (c). Therefore, this complaint is closed effective the date of this letter. Continued compliance is contingent upon the University's carrying out the stipulated corrective actions it has agreed to. Failure to perform the corrective actions may result in a finding of noncompliance.

As is our standard practice, OCR will monitor the University's progress in implementing the corrective actions. In order to monitor the implementation of the Compliance Agreement, OCR requires that the University submit progress reports on December 30, 1991 and April 30, 1992 and a final report on October 30, 1992.

The findings of this letter address only the issues discussed herein and should not be interpreted as a determination of the University's compliance or noncompliance with Section 504 in any other respect.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552, it may be necessary to release this document and related correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, we will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personal information which, if released, could reasonably expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
We wish to thank you and your staff for the cooperation you extended to OCR throughout the course of this investigation. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to telephone me at (617) 223-9662, or Robert L. Pierce, Director, Compliance Division--Area I, at (617) 223-9699.

Thomas J. Hibino
Regional Director