Justice Department Determines Private School Voucher Programs Must Comply with the ADA

     Last week the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a letter to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) affirming that Wisconsin must ensure that students with disabilities who seek to enroll or are enrolled in private schools through Wisconsin’s taxpayer funded voucher program are not discriminated against on the basis of their disability. Wisconsin enacted laws creating the tax payer funded private school voucher program over 20 years ago and it was implemented in the city of Milwaukee by DPI. In June 2011 a collation of advocacy groups (the ACLU Foundation for Racial Justice, ACLU of Wisconsin, and Disability Rights Wisconsin) filed a complaint with the Department of Justice alleging that students in the Milwaukee Public Schools are (1) deterred by DPI and the private voucher schools from participating in the voucher program, (2) denied admission to voucher schools when they do apply, and (3) expelled or constructively forced to leave voucher schools as a result of policies and practices that fail to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities. These advocacy groups claimed the actions by DPI and the private voucher schools violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

          The Department of Justice investigated the allegations of the complaint and interviewed parents and public school district officials. Based on the investigation, DOJ determined that the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) must do more to enforce the ADA requirements that govern the treatment of students with disabilities who participate in the private school voucher program. Because the voucher program is publicly funded and administered by the state, it must comply with Title II of the ADA. Title II is the section of the ADA that applies to state and local governmental entities. Thus, DPI must ensure students with disabilities are not discriminated against based on their disability. According to the letter:

“DPI’s obligation to eliminate discrimination against students with disabilities in its administration of the school choice program is not obviated by the fact that the schools participating in the program are private secular and religious schools. Indeed, courts recognize that the agency administering a public program has the authority and obligation under Title II to take appropriate steps in its enforcement of program requirements to prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities; regardless of whether services are delivered directly by a public entity or provided through a third-party.”

Specifically, DOJ required the Wisconsin DOI to comply with:

1. ADA Title II Obligations. DPI must eliminate discrimination against students with disabilities or students whose parents or guardians have disabilities. The private or religious status of the individual voucher schools does not absolve DPI of that responsibility.
2. Complaints. DPI must establish and publicize a complaint procedure for individuals to file disability-based complaints and provide DOJ with copies of those complaints.
3. Data and Reporting. DPI must provide detailed data regarding how students with disabilities are being served by voucher schools.
4. Public Outreach. DPI must conduct outreach to educate families of students with disabilities about school choice programs, and provide specific and accurate information about the rights of students with disabilities and the services available at voucher schools.
5. Monitoring and Oversight. DPI must ensure that voucher schools do not discourage students with disabilities from applying for admission, or improperly reject a student with a disability who does apply to a voucher school. Voucher schools cannot exit/expel a student with a disability unless the school has first determined, on a case-by-case basis, that there are no reasonable modifications to school policies, practices or procedures that would enhance the school’s ability to serve the student.
6. ADA Training for Voucher Schools. DPI must provide mandatory ADA training to voucher schools on a periodic basis and submit a copy of the training materials and attendance sheets to DOJ.
7. Guidance. By the end of 2013, DPI must develop program guidance to assist and educate voucher schools about ADA compliance. That guidance must be developed in consultation with DOJ.

School District Erroneously Requires Parent to Provide Medical ADHD Diagnosis in Order to Get 504 Plan

In South Monterey County (CA) Joint Union High School District 112 LRP 28705 (OCR 2012), the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) determined that a school district had violated Section 504 by requiring that a parent provide a medical diagnosis that her son had ADHD before  the District developed a 504 Plan. The student began attending  school in the District in his 9th grade year in the 2010-2011 school year. His mother met several times with school district staff trying to get the District to develop a 504 Plan for the student because he had been previously diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) when he attended a different school district. Each time the mother met with the District, she was told that she must produce a medical diagnosis of ADHD in order to obtain a 504 Plan. The school district never offered to evaluate the student itself. The student performed very poorly in his classes getting grades of “Ds”and “Fs”.

In January, 2011 the mother provided a diagnosis for her son from 2004 that identified him as having ADHD. Subsequently, the school district convened a meeting and developed a 504 plan that provided accommodations for the student. The mother, however, filed a complaint with OCR for the district’s delay in developing the plan and for not conducting its own evaluation of the student.

The Office for Civil Rights determined that district staff had acted under the erroneous belief that a medical diagnosis was required to qualify a student for a 504 Plan. Moreover, the school district’s mistake in requiring a medical diagnosis was exacerbated by requiring that the parent pay for the medical diagnosis. If the school district felt a diagnosis was needed, it was obligated to pay for the diagnosis. In order to avoid paying for the evaluation, the school district relied on an outdated diagnosis from 2004. This resulted in an inadequate 504 Plan. As a result, the student went for over a year and a half without being evaluated by the school district to either confirm, disprove, or modify his perceived diagnosis of ADHD and to identify the nature and extent of his possible disabilities. To remedy the 504 violation the school district agreed to conduct appropriate evaluations of the student, provide him with compensatory services, and to to train its staff on the requirements of section 504.

Office for Civil Rights Issues Guidance on Extracurricular Athletics for Students with Disabilities

Last Friday, January 25, 2013, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a formal guidance to clarify the 504 responsibility of schools to ensure  that students with disabilities have equal access to participate in extracurricular athletics. In 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) had issued a report that noted the health and social benefits all students derive from participating in extracurricular athletic activities in elementary and secondary schools. Unfortunately, the GAO report found that students with disabilities are not being afforded an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular athletics in schools. To help remedy that concern, the OCR issued this guidance.

The guidance provides an overview of the 504 obligations of public elementary and secondary schools and provides examples and suggestions for helping students with disabilities participate in athletics. The document warns schools against making decisions based on presumptions and stereotypes and discusses providing separate or different athletic opportunities for some students with disabilities.  For example:

• A student has a learning disability and participated in middle school’s lacrosse club. Upon entering 9th grade, her coach is aware of her learning disability and has a preconceived notion that students with learning disabilities would be unable to play under the  time constraints and pressures of an actual game. As a result, she does not play in actual games and the coach feels participating in practice is sufficient.  This violates 504. While the student does not have a right to participate in games, the coaches decision regarding her playing time must be based on the same criteria as other players and not on his presumptions about her disability.   

• A high school student has a hearing impairment and wants to run for the school track team. During tryouts the races are started by a visual cue and the student makes the team. Races during practice are also started with a visual cue. Before the first scheduled meet, the student asks the district to use a visual cue at the meet simultaneously with the starter pistol sounds. But, the district denies the students request and the coach informs him he can only run in practices, not in meets. This violates 504, the use of a visual cue does not require a fundamental alteration in how the meets are conducted.

The guidance offers other examples and discusses offering separate or different athletic opportunities for students with disabilities. For example, school districts are increasingly creating disability-specific teams for sports such as wheelchair tennis or wheelchair basketball. When the number of students at a particular school is insufficient to field a team, school districts can also (1) develop regional teams (2) mix male and female students on team together; and (3) offer allied or unified  sports teams on which students without disabilities participate with students with disabilities.

In conclusion, OCR stresses its commitment to working with schools, students, families, community and advocacy organizations  athletic associations, and others to ensure students with disabilities are provided an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular athletics  Finally, OCR notes that individuals who believe they have been subjected to discrimination may file a complaint with OCR or in court.

High School Athletic Association must Comply with 504 and Title II of the ADA

In People of the State of Illinois v Illinois High School Athletic Association, 59 IDELR 153 (N.D. Ill 2012), the Office of the Attorney General in Illinois sought an injunction against the Illinois High School Activities Association (IHSA) to require the IHSA to adopt policies and procedures to allow student athletes with disabilities the chance to compete in IHSA-sanctioned events and competitions. In Illinois ninety eight percent of Illinois public and private schools  are included in the IHSA and these schools rely on the IHSA to organize and administer their state championship meets. Moreover, the IHSA regulates all of the interscholastic activities for its member schools including: establishing eligibility criteria for student athletes, determining which member schools can compete, setting the times and dates during which activities can be held, establishing scoring rules and qualifying standards for student athletes, and regulating qualifications for coaches and officials. The IHSA, however, had not promulgated rules that would permit athletes with disabilities to score points in interscholastic meets. Thus, students who have disabilities that prevent them from meeting the existing state qualifying standards are denied the opportunity to compete in IHSA-run state championship meets. When asked to remedy the situation in order not to discriminate against students with disabilities in violation of  Section 504 and Title II of the ADA, the IHSA took the position that it was a private entity and not covered by either of those federal civil rights laws. As a result, the Illinois Attorney General and Equip for Equality, the Illinois Protection & Advocacy System, sued the IHSA.

In the complaint the Attorney General focused upon a particular student’s experience. M.K. was a 16-year-old student with physical disabilities including lower limb paralysis. She needed the use of a full-time wheelchair. She had been swimming with her high school swim team since her freshman year and had participated in local interscholastic track and swim meets. In fact, her swimming times placed her among the top adaptive high school swimmers in Illinois. Her disability, however, prevented her from meeting the qualifying standards that the IHSA sets for swimmers without disabilities. So, she is unable to earn points for her team in these competitions  She was, therefore  excluded from participating in meets on behalf of her high school. Prior to filing the lawsuit, the Attorney General met with representatives of the IHSA and proposed that the IHSA set up exhibition heats and other activities for athletes with disabilities. The IHSA’s executive director expressed concern that the IHSA may be exposed to liability but said the IHSA would respond to the proposal. Instead of responding the IHSA filed suit against the Attorney General, who then sued the IHSA under 504 and Title II of the ADA.

The court disagreed with the IHSA’s position that as a private entity Section 504 and the ADA did not apply to the IHSA. Section 504 applies to entities that receive federal financial assistance. The IHSA moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it received no such assistance. The Attorney General responded that the IHSA received federal assistance indirectly from its member school districts. Moreover, the IHSA argued that Title II of the ADA did not apply to it because it was not a public entity. The court determined that since 98% of Illinois schools are members of the IHSA  the Attorney General had alleged sufficient facts for the case to go to trial.

After failing to get the case dismissed, the IHSA settled it in September of 2012. The settlement agreement allowed swimmers with disabilities to compete in the 50 yard, 100 yard, 200 yard freestyle and the 100 yard breaststroke.

Massachusetts District Violates 504 by Not Meeting Student’s Assistive Technology (AT) Needs While AT Device is Being Repaired

     A Massachusetts School District violated a student’s 504 Plan by not providing training for staff on how to use an FM sound amplification system and not providing a back-up device for a student with a hearing impairment while the original device was being repaired. In Bellingham (MA) Public Schools, 59 IDLER 142 (OCR 2012) the school district developed a 504 Plan for a student with a hearing impairment. The initial plan was developed during his fourth grade year in elementary school and included: preferential seating; oral directions and instruction should take place so that the speaker is facing the student; gain the student’s visual attention before providing instruction or directions; provide a specified area in which the student can work if requested/needed; check to see that the student understands directions; clarify if necessary; and the use of an FM system for amplification. The school guidance counselor was responsible for communicating the 504 plan to the student’s teachers and she did so by placing a copy in their mail boxes. She did not provide the teachers with any instructions on how to use the FM system. The student used the system through his fourth grade year, but in fifth grade, during the student’s first year of middle school, problems began.

     The middle school teachers did not know how to use the device or how to “sync” it. The principal arranged for the speech language pathologist to teach the principal, the school nurse, and the guidance counselor how to synchronize the system. However, the FM device only worked intermittently and eventually was sent to be repaired. The student went months without the FM device. During that time no one checked with the student to determine how not having the device was affecting him. Moreover, no one made any effort to compensate for the unavailable system.

     As a result, the student’s mother noted that he often came home crying because he had missed the teacher’s instructions, particularly during the confusion at the end of a school day. The mother called his friends to check on his assignments. Frustrated, she filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) alleging a violation of 504.

     The school district explained to OCR, that since the student had continued to maintain “A” and “B” grades while the FM device was unavailable, they felt he was not affected by the district’s failure to follow his 504 Plan. The Office for Civil Rights, however, agreed with the student’s mother that his maintenance of good grades was due to his own diligence. Thus, the OCR determined the district’s failure to implement the 504 Plan and failure to implement mitigating measures denied the student a free appropriate public education and violated 504. To resolve the complaint the school district agreed to:

• Review the student’s 504 Plan at the beginning of the following school year;

• Clearly designate what accommodations are always supposed to be provided and what accommodations are supposed to be provided in the event the FM system is not working;

• Ensure that the plan includes a provision for checking in with the student about the provision of services if the FM system is not working and provide training on the FM system to all of the student’s sixth grade teachers.

     The lesson for school districts from this case is to develop a back-up plan for what to do if the device breaks. School districts and 504 planning teams should anticipate that AT devices will break and determine, ahead of time, where the device can be repaired and what to do in the interim. Good communication between parents and school staff can help avoid and/or resolve disputes. So, as part of the 504 Plan, involve parents in devising the back-up plan. Finally, school districts should not rely solely on the adequacy of a student’s grades in determining eligibility for services or the impact on the student when required services are not provided.

On 39th Anniversary of 504 OCR Issues “Disability Rights Enforcement Highlights”

     On the 39th Anniversary of the passage of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within the U.S. Department of Education has published Disability Rights Enforcement Highlights. This 21 page publication provides a good overview of OCR’s role in protecting the rights of students with disabilities under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA. It discusses what is a disability, the IDEA and 504, and focuses on the following seven different issue areas: Free appropriate public education, discipline, academic adjustments, accessibiltiy of technology, physical accessibility of programs services & facilities, harassment/bullying, and right to equal treatment.

     The booklet provides specific case examples in each of these issue areas and provides interesting statistical data regarding OCR’s work. For example, in the fiscal years 2009 through 2011, OCR received over 11,700 disability-related complaints. This is more than ever before in a three-year period. Moreover, while OCR also investigates complaints based on discrimination due to race, color, national origin, sex, and age, more than 55% of the complaints OCR received in this three-year period involved disability issues. Looking at some of the specific issue areas: 4,600 cases involved a denial of a free appropriate public education, 750 involved Discipline issues, and 1,000 complaints were based on Disability Harassment. Moreover, the Office for Civil Rights noted that students served under the IDEA were twice as likely to be suspended out of school as their classmates without disabilities.

      Again, the OCR provides specific case examples in each of these issue areas. The booklet provides the following sad case example regarding disability harassment. A high school student with Fragile X Syndrome, Asperger’s Syndrome, Tourette’s Syndrome and ADHD was verbally ridiculed be her fellow students about her disability-related body odor, sprayed with an air freshener by staff in front of her classmates, detained by staff in school who made her take showers before allowing her to attend class, and pulled out of class and sent home before the end of the school day because of her body odor. After OCR’s involvement, the school agreed to provide training to staff about 504 and the student’s disabilities, enroll the student in its “Senior Life Skill”s course, provide her with weekly social work services, and help her find a community job.

     As noted earlier, this publication provides similar specific case examples in each of the issue areas.  I commend this booklet to you. I think it will help clarify the vital role OCR plays in protecting the rights of students with disabilities.

School District Could Not Rely Solely on Good Grades When Determining 504 Eligibility

In Cabarrus County (NC) Schs., 59 IDELR 113 (OCR XI, D.C. (NC) 2012), the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) determined that a North Carolina school district may have mistakenly determined a 14 year-old student with a traumatic brian injury (TBI)  ineligible for services because it only looked at his grades and did not consider information from a variety of sources regarding his educational experience. The student had been hit by a car and as a result suffered severe headaches, memory loss, dizziness, and nausea. He also had problems concentrating and paying attention. His mother provided the school district with a neurologist’s prescription for a 504 Plan. The district, however, determined that the student did not have a disability and was not eligible for a 504 Plan. The school district based its decision solely on the student’s satisfactory grades, standardized test scores, and data from two classroom observations. The OCR determined that, while that information is relevant, the district failed to gather other necessary information from the student’s parents, medical providers, and other teachers.

Consequently, the school district did not consider the impact of his injury on major life activities other than learning. In order to have a disability under Section 504 an individual must have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Learning is one major life activity, but there are other major life activities. Since it only considered the student’s grades, the district failed to conduct tests on the student’s memory, concentration, or cognitive functioning. These tests are routinely conducted as part of a neuropsychological assessment that can assist in determining the impact of a TBI on educational performance. Moreover, the district never considered whether the student needed psychological or other testing. Thus, the school district did not have the necessary information from a variety of sources to make an accurate determination of the student’s eligibilty under Section 504.

To remedy the violation, the school dsitrict agreed to re-evaluate the student’s 504 eligibilty using the appropriate additional information. The student’s eligibility will be determined by a team of knowledgable people. If the student is determined eligible, the team will also consider whether any compensatroy servces are necessary for the time the student has been without support services. The team will also calculate the amount of compensatory services and develop a plan to provide the compensatory services. Finally, the school district will provide training to its staff regarding  the definition of disability under Section 504, evaluating students under Section 504, and Section 504′s placement requirements.

District’s Indifference to Bullying and Harassment of Student with Asperger Syndrome States a 504/ADA Claim

The school district in Preston ex rel. A.P. v. Hilton Cent. Sch. Dist., 112 LRP 36253 (W.D.N.Y. 07/11/12), claimed that because its staff’s failure to investigate the bullying and harassment of a student was not based on the student’s disability, the parents could not pursue a claim for disability harassment in violation of Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The District Court, however, ruled that the reasons why the staff failed to investigate reports of peer harassment against the high school student with Asperger Syndrome had no bearing on the parent’s 504/ADA claims. This is not surprising when we look at the alleged sordid facts of this case. Please be advised that this article includes offensive language allegedly directed at this student with a disability. I feel it is important to include some of this language in order to accurately relate the bullying the student endured.

The student, A.P., was seventeen and attended Hilton Central High School during the 2009-2010 school year. He has Asperger Syndrome. During that school year he was routinely bullied by students in a Basic Electronics Class, who mocked him daily, including calling him “f*&#ing retard”, “a*#hole”, fag*#t, and “bitch”. They also made comments disparaging  his cognitive abilities, such as “F*#* you, you autistic piece of s*#t.” Despite  numerous complaints of this bullying behavior in this class and a meeting with the principal, the school did not take meaningful action to get the harassment to stop. Later in the year the student enrolled in a Construction class. In that class he was called “gay,”(and similar slurs) “retard,” “a#*hole,”bitch,” and “loser” during every class. Students also threw pencils and pieces of wood at him. A.P. complained to the classroom teacher, but no action was taken to discipline his tormentors. Eventually, A.P. found it difficult to attend school and his grades dropped by 40% in two of his classes. His parents alleged that A.P. tried to return to his classes, but the bullying and insults continued to the point that he was unable to function emotionally or academically. The parents filed suit for disability harassment under Section 504 and the ADA.

The school district’s attorneys moved to dismiss the case arguing that the school staff did not act solely “by reason of [A.P.'s] disability.” The district court, however, ruled that “liability for discrimination may be imputed to teachers and administrators for students’ peer-to-peer harassment where those defendants displayed ‘deliberate indifference’ to the underlying harassment, where the harassment is itself motivated by discriminatory animus.” The court noted that A.P.’s parents “allege that the cumulative effect of the harassment was that A.P. discontinued attending school, became profoundly disturbed, and was so emotionally crippled that he was unable to return to complete final exams.” Moreover, the parents stated that they notified district employees on multiple occasions of the ongoing harassment, through telephone conversations, e-mail correspondence and sit down meetings. Those individuals, however, “failed to act, acquiesced in the harassment of A.P. by his peers because of his disability, and that the defendants’ alleged conduct had the effect of denying A.P. access to educational opportunities.” Thus, the court denied the school district’s motion to dismiss and the lawsuit and the case, if not settled, will proceed.

Decisions Regarding Students Using Service Animals at School Must be Made by a Group and Consider Individual Circumstances

Section 504 requires that school districts consider a student’s request to bring a service animal to school individually and, like most issues involving students with disabilities, the decision must be made by a group of persons and based upon information from a variety of sources. In Colorado Springs CO School District #11, 56 IDELR 52 (OCR 2010) the Office for Civil Rights determined that the school district’s failure to formally consider whether a service animal was an appropriate accommodation for a high school student with spastic quadriplegia violated Section 504. In this case the student, a freshman in high school, had been accompanied by his dog at school since second grade. In 2009 the school principal banned the dog from the high school because a teacher had significant allergic reactions to the dog’s presence in school. The student’s mother requested an IEP meeting to consider adding the dog to her son’s IEP. While there was not an IEP meeting, there was  a meeting of several school staff with the parent. At the meeting the Special Education Facilitator informed the mother that the presence of the dog was not an academic matter and could not be included in her son’s IEP. The mother then filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

The Office for Civil Rights determined that the district violated Section 504 because it did not consider the student’s individual needs when it unilaterally decided not to include the dog on the student’s IEP. The school district was mistaken in its view that service dogs are outside the scope of the IEP process. In order to resolve the complaint, the school district agreed to convene a multidisciplinary team to make an individual determination whether the student’s use of the dog was necessary for him to receive a free appropriate public education. Moreover, the district was required to provide training to district staff that service dogs may be included on a student’s IEP or 504 Plan if the multidisciplinary so determines. Additionally, the training must address that multidisciplinary teams will consider information from a variety of sources, including the student’s need for a service dog.

The Office for Civil Rights made a similar determination in Trinity Area (PA) Sch Dist., 56 IDELR 143 (OCR 2010) and pointed out that holding the meeting was not sufficient if the team discussion focused only on the parent’s ability to prove the student’s need for a service animal. In that case the IEP team met but it did not give appropriate consideration to the student’s need for the animal. The student’s parents were the only members of the IEP team who were knowledgable about the use of service animals  and the team did not discuss how the dog’s presence might affect the student’s behaviors. Instead, the team focused solely on the effect the dog might have on students and staff with allergies. To be sure, OCR noted, the effect of the dog’s presence on staff and students should be considered, but the team needed to consider the particular student’s needs as well. In another service dog case Bakersfield (CA) City Sch. Dist., 50 IDELR 169 (OCR 2008), OCR discussed that school districts may offer a student alternatives to the use of a service animal, but those alternatives must address all of the functions the service animal performs for the student. Finally, and importantly, all decisions  regarding whether to allow a service animal on a school campus must be made on a case-by-case basis, and must be specific to the student and his or her service animal.

Thus, as is generally the case, decisions regarding services for students with disabilities are made by a multidisciplinary team, on a case-by-case basis, and specific to the student and the student’s individual needs.

District’s Safety Concerns Do Not Justify Shortened School Day

In Castaic (Ca) Union Elementary Sch. Dist., 58 IDELR 234 (OCR IX, San Francisco (Ca) 2011), the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) determined that the school district denied students with mobility impairments a free appropriate public education when it shortened their school days and reduced their instructional time to ensure student safety. A group of elementary school students with mobility impairments and who used buses with wheelchair lifts filed a complaint with OCR because their school day was shortened. For most elementary school students in the district the school day lasted six hours and 31 minutes. But students who used buses with wheelchair lifts were required to leave their last class of the day 36 minutes earlier. After its investigation, OCR noted that this resulted in these students receiving 180 less instructional minutes per week than students who did not use buses with wheel chair lifts. The school district argued that having the accessible and regular buses run on the same schedule was too chaotic and potentially dangerous.

OCR agreed that safety may have been a relevant consideration, but it was not a valid reason for denying students with mobility impairments an equal educational opportunity. To be sure, if a shortened day is medically and educationally necessary, it may be appropriate for an individual student. But a shortened day for an entire category of students (such as these students who used accessible buses), is not an individualized decision. The school district agreed to develop a procedure to ensure that students with mobility impairments who received transportation services would receive equal instruction time.