OCR Letter: Los Rios Community College District
Dr. Queen F. Randall
Chancellor
Los Rios Community College District
1919 Spanos Court
Sacramento, CA 95825-3981
Complaint No. 09-93-2214-I
On September 22, 1993, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Education
(Department), received the above referenced complaints filed against the American River
College (hereinafter ARC), Cosumnes River College (hereinafter CRC), and Sacramento City
College (hereinafter SCC). The complainant alleged that these colleges discriminated against her
on the basis of her disability (visual impairment) in that their campuses are allegedly not fully
accessible to visually impaired students with regard to written materials, the computer
laboratory, the library, physical education courses, and student employment services and
opportunities.
OCR has the responsibility under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and its
implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 104, to ensure that a recipient of Federal financial
assistance through the Department does not discriminate against persons participating in its
programs and activities, such as students, on the basis of disability. OCR also has jurisdiction as
a designated agency under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and its
implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. Part 35, over complaints of disability discrimination filed
against public educational entities, including public elementary and secondary systems and
institutions. The Los Rios Community College District (District) campuses at ARC, CRC, and SCC,
receive Federal funds through the Department and are public educational entities; OCR
therefore has jurisdiction to investigate these complaints pursuant to Section 504 and Title II.
Under Section 504 and Title II, as to a recipient of federal funds and a public entity, respectively,
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, or be
subjected to discrimination.
Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 28 C.F.R. § 35.160, a public entity
shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, and
members of the public with disabilities are as effective as communications with others. A public
entity shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an
individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a
service, program, or activity conducted by a public entity. In determining what type of auxiliary
aid and service is necessary, a public entity shall give primary consideration to the requests of
1
the individual with disabilities [emphasis added].
The Department of Justice (DOJ) interpretive guidance accompanying section 35.160 states that
"Deference to the request of the individual with a disability is desirable because of the range of
disabilities, the variety of auxiliary aids and services, and different circumstances requiring
effective communication." The DOJ guidelines are clear that printed materials are within the
meaning of "communication." In describing the auxiliary aids and services that are appropriate,
the DOJ guidelines recognize the critical role that modern technology now plays in providing
program access to persons with disabilities.
OCR provides the following technical assistance. Due to the "range of disabilities" and the
"primary consideration" accorded the individual's preference in the manner accommodation is
offered, the post-secondary public institution should be prepared to deliver in a reasonable and
timely manner the printed materials relied upon in its educational program in all of the
following mediums: auditory, tactile (Braille), and enlarged print. Although there may be
circumstances when the student's preferred medium is not, on balance, the medium selected
by the post-secondary institution to provide the student appropriate aids and services, the
institution may not categorically refuse to provide accommodation through a particular
medium (e.g., Braille). Rather, the post-secondary institution must be prepared to timely offer
access to its printed materials in all three mediums, with the particular medium used for the
student's request dependent on a case by case analysis. It should be noted that if the student
with the visual impairment prefers, and the public entity is willing to provide, access through
"E-text" (electronic text in a digital format read by computer), such method may be used in lieu
of access through another medium.
In most instances, "timely" will mean within a reasonable number of days from the student's
request, with materials for which "time is of the essence" being made available sooner, and
other more voluminous printed materials (e.g., textbook) taking longer. Materials that the
public entity is on notice that the student with the visual impairment will need, such as course
handouts/examinations in a class the student is enrolled, are to be provided to the student with
the visual impairment on the same day as they are made available to nondisabled students.
The importance and consequences of student comprehension is a critical factor in determining
whether to honor the student's preferred medium. Thus, for example, there is a strong
presumption that examinations will be provided in accordance with the student's request,
whereas there is more latitude with regard to a student events/activities calendar. The term
"printed materials" includes (but is not limited to) post-secondary publications such as student
handbooks, admissions applications, class schedules, financial aid information, as well as
publications from other sources relied upon by the post-secondary institution in its educational
program, such as textbooks. Provided that under the circumstances the method is timely and
2
effective (e.g., voice quality, correct pronunciation, convenience, etc.), auditory access may be
accomplished through a variety of methods such as audio-tapes, personal readers, or
synthesized speech.
At any point in an OCR investigation prior to a determination, OCR may administratively close
the case if the recipient indicates a willingness to resolve all issues raised by the complaint, and
provides OCR a written commitment specifying actions that will appropriately resolve each
issue. During the investigation of these complaints, the District expressed a willingness to
resolve the issues raised by the complaints by providing OCR with a written commitment that
specifies the action to be taken to ensure an appropriate resolution of the issues involving ARC,
CRC, and SCC.
On April 18, 1994, the District provided OCR with a voluntary resolution plan (copy enclosed)
which addresses the issues raised in the above referenced OCR case docket numbers. In its
voluntary resolution plan, the District assured OCR that, by specified dates, it would 1) develop
written procedures by which students with disabilities may request academic
adjustments/auxiliary aids, and obtain assistance in resolving any problems with instructor
provision of the adjustments/aids, 2) make its printed materials and computers fully and timely
accessible (via auditory, tactile/braille, and enlarged print) to its visually impaired population,
and 3) make its physical education courses, its library, and its student employment services and
opportunities accessible to students with visual impairments. Certain specific provisions of the
District voluntary resolution plan addressed issues pertaining to the complainant in particular.
OCR has concluded that the District voluntary resolution plan resolves the issues in these cases.
The cases are therefore being administratively closed as of the date of this letter. OCR is
concurrently advising the complainant of this action. The closure of these complaints is not
intended to signify any findings by OCR concerning the compliance or noncompliance of the
District campuses with regard to the specific allegations raised by the complainant. Rather,
these cases are being closed based upon the District assurance that it will be implementing the
terms of its voluntary resolution plan. OCR will monitor implementation of the agreement and,
if the District does not complete its commitments as scheduled, OCR will immediately reopen
the case and resume its investigation. Thus, any future failure by the District to implement its
voluntary resolution plan may, upon completion of an OCR investigation, result in OCR finding
the District in violation of Section 504 and/or Title II.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and
related records on request. If OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent
provided by law, personal information which, if released, could reasonably be expected to
constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
3
OCR would like to thank you for your cooperation during the course of the resolution of these
cases. If you have any questions regarding the closure of these cases, please contact Mr.
Charles R. Love, Director, Compliance Division I, at (415) 556-7025.
John E. Palomino
Regional Civil Rights Director
4