The Catholic University of America

 

 

Summary of Federal Laws

Compliance Partners

 

EO Officer

Director of Disability Support Services

General Counsel

Director, Facilities Maintenance and Operations

Director of Campus Activities

Electronic Resources and Services (Mullen Library)

Related Policies

Disablity Services for Students

Interpreter Policy

EO Policy

Discrimination Complaint

Reasonable Accommodations 

Students

Non-Discrimination with Respect to Students

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008

42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; 28 C.F.R. § 36.101 et seq

See Public Law 110-325 for ADAAA

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in access to private colleges and universities and contains many of the same provisions as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). Requires reasonable accommodations (e.g., a modification or adjustment to the status quo inherent in the program or activity) to allow a qualified person with a disability to participate fully in the programs and activities of the university. Participation must be in the most integrated setting possible. See 42 U.S.C. § 12,181. See also Disabled Students in Higher Education: Administrative and Judicial Enforcement of Disability Law, 22 J.C. & U.L. 989 (1996). See 36 C.F.R. § 1191.1 et seq., 56 Fed. Reg. 35,408 (July 26, 1991) for Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities and 42 U.S.C. § 225 and § 611 for Title IV of the ADA which covers telecommunications. See also the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., which prohibits discrimination in housing on basis of disability.

Physical Access

Title III of the ADA requires, among other things, that IHEs remove barriers to access in existing facilities where it is readily achievable to do so, i.e. “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense” (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv), 28 C.F.R. § 36.304), and that it construct or alter any buildings or facilities in such a manner that those buildings or facilities meet the requirements of title III of the ADA, including the Standards. 42 U.S.C. § 12183, 28 C.F.R. § 36.401-402. In addition, title III of the ADA requires that IHEs  continue to ensure that no individual with a disability is discriminated against on the basis of a disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the IHE's  services and facilities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, 28 C.F.R. 36.201.

See also Americans with Disabilities Act for a summary description of Title I of the ADA, which mandates non-discrimination on the basis of disability in employment.

Law School Admission Council Consent Decree (May 2014)

LSAC will pay over $7 million in penalties and damages to compensate those who applied for testing accommodations while taking the LSAT over the last five years but were denied accommodations or had their scores flagged as taken under non-standard conditions. See Chronicle article by Katherine Mangan titled Law School Admission Council Agrees to Changes for Disabled Test Takers.

Argenyi v. Creighton University, Case No.8:09CV341, (U.S. Dist. Court, Nebraska) Filed May 18, 2014

Plaintiff Michael Creighton, a medical student with a hearing disability, was granted attorney's fees and expert witness fees in the amount of $478,000 to cover his five years of legal expenses in litigating his right to an accommodation.

Law School Admissions Council v. State of California; (Jan. 2014) (3rd App. District)

In case over whether law allows LSAC to flag test scores of those who received accommodations, appelate court reversed grant of preliminary injunction for LSAC. No equal protection violation in not allowing LSAT to flag scores, as no one else is similarly situated.

Argenyi v. Creighton University, Case No. 8:09CV341, U.S. Dist. Court, District of Nebraska, decided 12/19/13 In this case, a medical student with a hearing disability brought suit under Title III of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiff does not know sign language, but does read lips and uses cued speech. He also relies on Communication Access Real Time Transcription, or CART services. His physician recommended CART services along with other accommodations. Argenyi paid for certain CART services and interpreters on his own for the first two years of med school when the school refused to provide the accommodations. He took a leave when the University would not allow interpreters in some of the clinical settings. While the court denied his request for the University to reimburse him for the money he expended on accommodations in years 1 and 2, the court granted his motion for injunctive relief for years 3 and 4 of medical school and ordered as follows: 

Beginning in the fall semester of 2014, and continuing until his graduation or the discontinuation of his enrollment as a medical student, Creighton University will provide Michael Argenyi with auxiliary aids and services for his effective communication, including Communication Access Real-time transcription (CART) in didactic settings and sign-supported oral interpreters in small group and clinical settings.


Proposed Rule, Amendment of Americans with Disabilities Act Title II and Title III Regulations to Implement ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 79 Fed. Reg. 4839, Jan. 30, 2014.

See the ACE comments to the proposed rules, which focus on the potential impact on higher education.

 

ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA)(Effective January 1, 2009)

In 2008, on Sept. 25, 2008 President Bush signed into law the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The focus of this law is to clarify the definition of disability for purposes of employment, public entities and public accommodations. This law expressly overturns two Supreme Court decisions on the ADA: Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002). The criticism of those two cases was that they had unduly narrowed the "broad scope of protection" provided by the ADA in defining the term disability.

In addition, the current EEOC regulations defining the term substantially limits (as significantly restricted) were found to be inconsistent with Congressional intent, and the EEOC was ordered to draft new regulations with a less demanding standard for an individual trying to establish a substantially limiting mental or physical impairment.

The ADAAA clarifies that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active. Under the amended law, employers may not consider mitigating measures when determining whether an individual is disabled, with the exception of glasses and contact lenses. An employer may be found to have discriminated against an individual if the individual can prove discrimination because of an actual or perceived impairment, whether or not the impairment actually limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. This last sentence does not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less. Employers are not required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who are solely regarded as disabled and are not actually disabled. An impairment only needs to substantially limit one major life activity to qualify as a disability, and not just those activities that are of primary importance. Under the ADAAA the following are major life activities:

(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.
(B) MAJOR BODILY FUNCTIONS- For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.
 

For tips on what steps to take to be ready for the ADAAA see the Jackson Lewis Sept. 25, 2008 newsletter titled: President Bush Signs Landmark Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act. See also the Comparison chart on the ADA as construed by the Courts and as passed by the Senate. See also the AHEAD discussion on the amendments and a link to the Congressional Record.

DOJ Statement of Interest dated June 27, 2012 in support of a class action (US Dist. Court for Northern Div. California) against the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) . DOJ statement is in support of plantiff applicants and takes the position that testing entities are routinely making common errors in reviewing requests for accommodations. Discusses 28 CFR 36.309 and also the new 2010 regulation that was meant to clarify the law in this area. The DOJ statement also states the Dept. opposition to flagging of test scores by the LSAC, stating as follows: 

Flagging test scores also raises issues of stigma, privacy, and discrimination against test takers with disabilities that implicate core tenets of the ADA. Flagging a test score because of testing accommodations received necessarily identifies the test taker as a person with a disability,and does so without his or her consent. Accordingly, flagging may raise justifiable concerns for
some individuals about being stigmatized, discriminated against, or prevented from competing
on an equal basis in the highly competitive law school application process. The American Bar
Association (ABA) recently noted that the practice of flagging “raises unfair questions about the
score’s legitimacy.*

 

Proposed and Final Rules

Final Rule,  Nondiscrimination on the basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities, Swimming Pools, 77 Fed. Reg. 16163, March 20, 2012.
This rules extends the compliance date from March 15, 2012 to May 21, 2012. In addition, DOJ has also issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comments on a possible additional extension of the compliance deadline to September 17, 2012. Comments on the proposed rule are due by April 4. The extension follows issuance by DOJ of a January 31 memorandum entitled “Accessible Pools—Means of Entry and Exit”. The memorandum indicated that for existing pools at public accommodations covered by Title III, installation of a fixed lift or other accessible means of entry would be required to the extent readily achievable, and that the lifts must be available and in working condition at poolside during all open hours. If use of a fixed lift were not deemed readily achievable, only then could use of a portable pool lift be utilized.

 

Notice of Interpretation, 77 Fed. Reg. 14972, March 14, 2012, Discrimination on the Basis of Disablity in Federally Assisted Programs and Activities. This notice contains DOE's interpretation of 34 CFR 104.23 as it relates to new construction and alteration on or after Sept. 15, 2010. For new construction and alteration after that date, the DOE will interpret the 504 regs to permit use of standards consistent with DOJ's Title II regulations until the 504 regulations are revised The entity may also use the current Uniform Federal Accessibilty Standards currently in the 504 regulations. See the DOJ web page on Title II and Title III regulations and dates for compliance. Use of the 2010 Title II ADA Standards will not be required as means of compliance with Sec. 504 until the Department revises its Sec. 504 regulations to formally adopt the 2010 Title II ADA Standards in lieu of UFAS. For institutions subject to Title II of the ADA as well as Sec. 504, OCR states that for new construction and alterations commenced on or after March 15, 2012, the 2010 Title II ADA Standards will be used by OCR in its enforcement of Title II regulations.

 

NonDiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities, Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 56236, Sept. 15, 2010. This final rule was finally published a few months after it was posted online by the Justice Department on July 23rd.  This final rule revises the Department of Justice (Department) regulation that implements title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and in commercial facilities. The Department is issuing this final rule in order to adopt enforceable accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) that are consistent with the minimum guidelines and requirements issued by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, and to update or amend certain provisions of the title III regulation so that they comport with the Department's legal and practical experiences in enforcing the ADA since 1991.

See the Pillsbury Client Alert on this issue, from August 2, 2010, titled New ADA Regulations Update Standards and Broaden Requirements for Public Accommodations. Also helpful  is the summary of the new  2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

 

Revised ADA Regulations Implementing Title II and III, DOJ Friday July 23, 2010
These final rules revise the rules governing physical access to facilities.  Changes include adoption of new standards for accessible design, The changes are 122 pages long when commentary is included. The DOJ has published a Fact Sheet on the Final Rule to Amend the DOJ regulation Implementing Title III of the ADA. Also,  the DOJ has published the final rule in a format that highlights the new text in bold.

Proposed Rules on Nondiscrimination on the basis of Disability by State and Local Governments and Places of Public Accommodations; Equipment and Furniture, 75 Fed. Reg. 43452, July 26, 2010. Comments due by Jan. 24, 2011. DOJ seeks public comment on 24 specific inquiries to assist it in formulating revised rules, including inquiries relating to medical equipment and furniture, exercise equipment and furniture, beds in guest rooms and sleeping rooms, electronic information technology and other types of equipment and furniture.

Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities and Public Accommodations, 75 Fed. Reg. 43460, July 26, 2010. Proposed Rules.

These proposed rules would amend 28 CFR Part 36 to clarify that web sites of Public Accommodations under Title III of the ADA must be made accessible to those with disabilities. In the preamble the DOJ notes as follows: 

Beyond goods and services, information available on the Internet has become a gateway to education.Schools at all levels are increasingly offering programs and classroom instruction through Web sites. Many colleges and universities offer degree programs online; some universities exist exclusively on the Internet. Even if they do not offer degree programs online, most colleges and universities today rely on Web sites and other Internet-related technologies in the application process for prospective students, for housing eligibility and on-campus living assignments, course registration, assignments and discussion groups, and for a wide variety of administrative and logistical functions in which students and staff must participate.

Specific accommodations discussed include captioning for videos posted online, alt text descriptions for photos, accessible online forms, elimination of CAPTCHAs (wavy letter boxes) and other fixes to allow the web to be fully accessible. The DOJ realizes this is a far reaching rule and has thus allowed an extensive comment period on the many issues raised. Those seeking to comment have until January 24, 2010.

A related document is the Congressional Research Service Paper dated July 22, 2010 titled The Americans with Disabilities Act: Application to the Internet. This publication was written before Justice released the proposed rules.


Settlement Agreements

 

Louisiana Tech University Settlement Agreement Over Inaccessible Course Materials July 2013

This agreement concerned exclusion of a blind student from course offerings by use of  an online learning product, MyOMLab, which violated Title II of the ADA. Within 120 days of the Agreement, the University has to revise its policies and reference the deployment of accessible technology and course content as set forth in Exhibit I, among other corrective measures, which includes Training, Reporting, and a payment to the complainant of $23, 543. See also the DOJ Press Release.

 

Settlement Agreement between Regents of the University of California on behalf of the Berkeley campus and Disability Rights Advocates.  **This May 2013 agreement involved improved access to textbooks, course readers and library materials for students with print related disabilities. Appendix A contains the Alternative Media Guidelines that will be adopted by UC Berkeley. New staff and new equipment will be available to implement the settlement. See the May 8, 2013 Chronicle article titled "In Settlement with Disabilities Group, Berkeley will Improve Access to Course Materials. "

 

Resolution Agreement South Carolina Technical College System OCR Compliance Review No. 11-11-6002 2-28-13. See the Resolution Letter as well.

The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR)  entered into an agreement with the South Carolina Technical College System (SCTCS), the state's largest higher education system, that will ensure that the websites of SCTCS and its 16-member colleges are accessible to persons who are blind, have low vision, or other print related disabilities.

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey settlement Agreement Under the ADA, March 5, 2013. The DOJ found School has discriminated against applicants upon rescinding their admissions after learning they had Hepatitis B. See also Press Release on case.

 

Mills College Settlement Agreement, DJ# 202-11-192, signed 12-19-12

This agreement resolves an investigation and compliance reivew of physical accessiblity for individuals with disabilities at Mills College under Title III of the ADA, and the DOJ regulations, including the ADA Standard for Accessible Design. The DOJ issued a press release on this case.

Lesley University Settlement Agreement: DJ 202-36-231 12-20-12

This agreement dealt with making the University meal plan accessible to students with celiac disease and other food allergies. Lesley University has agreed to the following as part of the terms of the agreement with the Justice Department: 

· Continually provide ready-made hot and cold gluten- and allergen-free food options in its dining hall food lines;

 · Develop individualized meal plans for students with food allergies, and allow those students to pre-order allergen free meals, that can be made available at the university’s dining halls in Cambridge and Boston;

 · Provide a dedicated space in its main dining hall to store and prepare gluten-free and allergen-free foods and to avoid cross-contamination;

 · Enable students to request food made without allergens, and ensure that a supply of allergen-free food is available;

 · Work to retain vendors that accept students’ prepaid meal cards that offer food without allergens;

 · Display notices concerning food allergies and identify foods containing specific allergens;

 · Train food service and University staff about food allergy related issues; and 

· Pay $50,000 in compensatory damages to previously identified students who have celiac disease or other food allergies.
 


Law School Admissions Council and National Federation of the Blind April 2011 Settlement Agreement.

In this agreement LSAC agrees, in response to litigation by NFB to make the LSAC web site fully accessible as follows: 

LSAC shall provide "Full and Equal Access" to the lsac.org website as provided herein no later than September 1, 2011 ("Completion Date") and continuing thereafter for the term of this Agreement. "Full and Equal Access" means that www.lsac.org meets the nonvisual requirements of WCAG 2.0, level AA and that blind guests using screen-reader software may acquire the same information and engage in the same transactions as are available to sighted guests with substantially equivalent ease of use. These accessibility requirements extend to all parts of the lsac.org website on which services or products are made available to prospective law school applicants or to LSAT and Credential Assembly Service registrants, including, but not limited to, the process of applying to law schools through lsac.org, including both the common information input fields and the input fields specific to each participating law school; and the documents and practice tests LSAC makes available online.

For more information see the April 26, 2011 Press Release issued by the US Department of Justice. This settlement will end the litigation between NFB and the law schools that were sued.

January 13, 2010 Justice Department Announcement on Settlement with Certain Colleges under ADA and E Book Readers.

Copies of settlement agreements are below. In addition, Arizona State settled a lawsuit brought by organizations representing the blind.

Case Western Settlement with Justice Dec. 22, 2009

Pace University Settlement with Justice Dec. 17, 2009

Reed College Settlement with Justice Dec. 18, 2009

Settlement Agreement between US and Chatham University:

Helpful review in paragraph 7 of what standards are applicable to a private university governed by Title III.


Consent Decree re University of Michigan Stadium (March 10, 2008)
This consent decree address steps the University will take to make the University football stadium more accessible for wheelchairs. The agreement was between plaintiff Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, plaintiff-intervenor U.S. Department of Justice, and defendant University of Michigan, and entered by the U.S. District Court for the E.D. Michigan.

 

Resources


Department of Justice, Education and Health and Human Services letter dated June 12, 2013 Issued to Health Related Schools Regarding Hepatitis B Discrimination: The letter cites to CDC 2012 guidance titled Updated CDC Recommendations for Management of Hepatitis B Virus-Infected Health Care Providers and Students. These updated recommendations reaffirm the 1991 CDC recommendation that HBV infection alone should not disqualify infected persons from the practice or study of surgery, dentistry, medicine, or allied health fields.

Report of the ARL Joint Task Force on Services to Patrons with Print Disabilities, Nov. 2, 2012.
Excellent guidance for the University community and those who review contracts for the libraries. E-book accessibility may involve as many as three different considerations, the accessibility of the content, the accessibility of the reading platform, and the accessibility of the device. As libraries purchase licenses, there should be a point person ensuring the terms of use of the license do not limit libraries ability to make the material accessible-as accessibility features may not be built into the vendor platform or the terms and conditions of the license.

This summary also includes an overview of the Hathi Trust decision, status of rulemaking on web page accessibility, and recommendations for libraries on how to ensure compliance with disability law.

 

NACUA Notes: The Revised ADA Title II and Tile III Regulations (Part II): Impact on Ticket Sales and Effective Communication Requirements at Athletic Events (June 22, 2012)

NACUA Notes:The Revised ADA Title II and Title III Regulations (Part I): Imapct on Campus Athletic Facilities (June 21, 2012)

AHEAD (Association on Higher Learning and Disablity) Guidance April 2012 Supporting Accommodation Requests: Guidance on Documentation Practices: This document is somewhat of a holistic approach that veers away from relying quite so heavilty on documenting disabilities prior to providing an accommodation, and instead placing more emphasis on student self reporting.

NACUA Notes: Federal Disability Laws: Do They Translate to Study Abroad Programs? (April 26, 2012) 

NACUA Notes: Update on Accommodating Service and Assistance Animals on Campus (March 16, 2012)

Higher Education and Disability: Improved Federal Enforcement Needed to Better Protect Students' Rights to Testing Accommodations: GAO Report dated Nov. 29, 2011

Advisory Commission on Accessible Instructional Materials in Postsecondary Education for Students with Disabilities: Dec. 6, 2011

Comments from Emily Lucio, Director of Disability Support Services at CUA, on the report:

From my understanding, most of the recommendations are to the publishers and other distributors of test materials.  Currently each school does its own e-text conversion, even when the publisher sends us an electronic file, there is still a lot of editing required.  If the recommendations by the Commission are adopted, then the goal would be to allow students with disabilities the same access to their texts as other students.  Right now, students with disabilities have to purchase a completely inaccessible textbook and then have it converted.  If it were possible for them to buy an accessible copy from the bookstore itself them we would not need to do what we are doing.  Currently, CUA converts over 60 books a semester into alternative format.

See the Dec. 6, 2011 Chronicle of Higher Education article by Alexandra Rice titled Education Dept. Report Calls for Greater Accessibility to Learning Materials for Visually Impaired Students.

NACUA Notes Title II Regulations Regarding Direct Threat (November 11, 2011)


Dear Colleague Letter, May 26, 2011 on the Application of Federal Accessibility Standards for Emerging Technologies.
See also the accompanying FAQ which is in essence the new guidance, and the EDUCAUSE resource page on the Federal Accessible Instructional Materials Commission and also a write up on the DCL.

NACUA Notes Service Animals on Campus (April 14,2011)

ADA Checklist for Existing Facilities (for compliance with 1991 regulations)

Fact Sheet: Adoption of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design

Useful Web Sites:

DOJ web page on ADA Settlements and Consent Agreements

***

NACUA ADA/FMLA Resources and Links (password protected)

ADA Q and A page

U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR), "Auxiliary Aids and Services for Postsecondary Students with Disabilities: Higher Education's Obligations Under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA.

NACUANOTES: Volume 12, No. 8--Direct Threat and Caring For Students at Risk for Self-Harm: Where We Stand Now (September 3, 2014)

 

updated 9/5/14 CCR