UTAH AHEAD: DISIBALITY
LAW: THE YEAR IN REVIEW
May 2010
Melissa L. Frost, J.D.
Loss Control Specialist
State of Utah, Division of Risk
Management
1
CAVEAT
This presentation is provided for
informational purposes only and may
not be construed as legal advice.
Consult your designated legal
counsel to address any pertinent
issues that may affect you.
2
HIGHER EDUCATION
OPPORTUNITY ACT (HEOA 2008)



SEC. 112. TEXTBOOK INFORMATION. (Creates a new
section #133, in the HEA)
''(a) PURPOSE AND INTENT.- The purpose of this section is to
ensure that students have access to affordable course
materials by decreasing costs to students and enhancing
transparency and disclosure with respect to the selection,
purchase, sale, and use of course materials. It is the intent of
this section to encourage all of the involved parties,
including faculty, students, administrators, institutions of
higher education, bookstores, distributors, and publishers,
to work together to identify ways to decrease the cost of
college textbooks and supplemental materials for students
while supporting the academic freedom of faculty members
to select high quality course materials for students.
http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html
3
HEOA 2008 Cont.









Publisher Requirements
Course Schedule Requirements
Information for College Bookstore
Requirements
Additional Information * Accessibility
GAO Report
Rule of Construction
No Regulatory Authority
EFFECTIVE 7-1-10
http://www.bookstore.csupomona.edu/content/d/faculty/HEOA.mht 4
HEOA 2008 Cont.


ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
An institution

disclosing the
information required
by subsection (d) (1)
is encouraged to
disseminate to

students
information

regarding -
If a college has these programs
they are encouraged to publicize
information about them.
Available programs for renting
textbooks or for purchasing
used textbooks;
Available guaranteed textbook
buy-back programs;
Any available institutional
alternative content delivery
programs; or
Other available cost-saving
5
strategies.
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE
MAKING (NPRM)

The comparison of an individual’s limitation is to
the ability of “most people” in the general
population.

Sitting, Reaching, and Interacting with Others are
MLA’s.

“An impairment substantially limits the major life
activity of working if it substantially limits an
individual’s ability to perform, or to meet the
qualifications for, the type of work at issue.”
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-22840.pdf
6
Harrison v. Benchmark Electronics
Huntsville, Inc., 2010 U.S. Appl LEXIS
632 (11th Cir. January 11, 2010)



H: “We now explicitly recognize that a plaintiff has a
private right of action… irrespective of his disability
status.”
Non-Disabled Applicants Can Sue under ADA in 11th Cir
Unlawful to use qualification standards,
employment tests or other selection criteria that
tend to screen out individuals with disabilities, on
the basis of disability, unless the standard, test, or
other selection criteria is job-related for the
subject position and consistent with business
necessity.
7
EXAMPLES OF IMPAIRMENTS
CONSISTENTLY MEETING THE
DEFINITION OF DISABILTY
 Deafness
 Blindness
 Intellectual
disability
 Partially/completely missing limbs
 Mobility impairments requiring wheelchair
use
 Autism
 Cancer
8
EXAMPLES OF IMPAIRMENTS
CONSISTENTLY MEETING THE
DEFINITION OF DISABILTY Cont.
 Cerebral
Palsy
 Diabetes
 Epilepsy
 HIV
or AIDS
 Multiple Sclerosis
 Major Depression, Bipolar Disorder, PTSD,
OCD, or Schizophrenia
9
EXAMPLES OF IMPAIRMENTS THAT
DISABLE SOME AND NOT OTHERS
Depends on the degree to which they affect the
individual’s major life activities.
 Asthma
 High Blood Pressure
 Hyperthyroidism
 Carpal Tunnel syndrome.
 Learning Disabilities
 Psychiatric Impairments

panic disorder, anxiety disorder, some forms of
depression other than major depression
10
EXAMPLES OF EPISODIC
IMPAIRMENTS

“An impairment that is episodic or in
remission is a disability if it would
substantially limit an MLA when active.”
 Epilepsy

Multiple Sclerosis

Cancer
Mental Illness




Hypertension
Asthma,
Psychiatric disabilities such as depression,
bipolar disorder, and post-traumatic stress
disorder.
11
PRE AMENDMENTS ACT CASES
SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITED IN LEARNING


Singh v. George Washington Univ., 508 F.3d
1097 (D.C. Cir. 2007), vacating and remanding
439 F. Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2006), on remand,
Singh v. George Washington Univ., 597 F. Supp.
2d 89 (D.D.C. 2009) (learning; time-limited test
taking)
Wong v. Regents of the University of
California, 379 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2004), as
amended, 410 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2005)
(substantially limited in learning)
12
Singh v. George Washington
University, 597 F. Supp. 2d 89
(D.D.C. 2009)




H: Dcrt did not apply ADA-AA retroactively.
1. Compare her to average person in general
population.
2. Performing on tests is not major life activity but
GW should have looked at LD overall.
3. GW said too late- already dismissed. Singh won
on only this issue because once GW learned she
had a disability- the accommodation was not to undo
what happened but to determine if she was qualified
going forward.
13
PRE AMENDMENTS ACT CASES
SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITED IN LEARNING


Herzog v. Loyola College in Maryland,
Inc., No. RDB-07-02416, 2009 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 94454 (D. Md. Oct. 9, 2009)
(learning)
Love v. Law School Admission Council,
513 F. Supp.2d 206 (E.D.Pa. 2007)
(substantially limited in learning, reading
and processing information)
14
POST AMENDMENTS ACT
CASES

Jenkins v. National Board of Medical
Examiners, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2660
(6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2009)

Brodsky v. New England School of Law,
617 F. Supp 2d 7 (D.Mass. 2009)
15
OTHER SUBSTANTIALLY
LIMITED CASES


Millington v. Temple University School of
Dentistry, 261 Fed. Appx. 363,2008 U.S.
App. LEXIS 1291 (3d Cir. Jan. 23, 2008),
affirming 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74926 (E.D.
Pa. Oct. 13, 2006) (substantially limited
generally), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 419
(2008)
Hogan v. Ogden, et aI., 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 58359 (E.D. Wash. July 20,2008)
(walking, due to complications of pregnancy)
16
REGARDED AS


Burns v. Slippery Rock University of
Pennsylvania, 2007 US. Dist. LEXIS
57716 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2007),
reconsideration granted and ruling overt' d
in part by Burns v. Slippery Rock Univ. of
Pa., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63406 (W.D.
Pa. Aug. 28,2007)
Costello v. University of North Carolina
at Greensboro, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
90519 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 14,2006)
17
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE

Concepcion v. Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, No. 08-2378,2010 US. Dist.
LEXIS 4243 (D.P.R. Jan. 20, 2010)
18
APPLICATION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY STANDARDS


Millington v. Temple University School
of Dentistry, 261 Fed. Appx. 363,2008
U.S. App. LEXIS 1291 (3d Cir. Jan. 23,
2008), affirming 2006 US. Dist. LEXIS
74926 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2006)
(substantially limited generally), cert.
denied, 129 S. Ct. 419 (2008)
Buhendwa v. University of Colorado at
Boulder, 214 Fed. Appx. 823, 2007 US.
App. LEXIS 2207 (lOth Cir. Jan. 30, 2007)
(unpublished)
19


APPLICATION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY STANDARDS
Cont.
Betts v. Rector and Visitors of the
University of Virginia, 145 Fed. Appx.
7,2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16456 (4th Cir.
Aug. 5,2005) (unpublished)
Herzog v. Loyola College in Maryland,
Inc., No. RDB-07-02416, 2009 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 94454 (D. Md. Oct. 9, 2009)
20
APPLICATION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY STANDARDS
Cont.

Di Lella v. Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia
David A. Clarke School of Law, et aI.,
570 F. Supp. 2d 1 CD.D.C. 2008).

Hogan v. Ogden, et aI., 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 58359 (E.D. Wash. July 20,2008).
21
APPLICATION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY STANDARDS
Cont.

Shamonsky v. Saint Luke's School of
Nursing, et aI., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
20426 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2008)

Chen v. Univ. of Wash., 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 16902 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 5,2008).
22
CONDUCT

Institutions may prohibit:
 Violence or threats of violence
 Stealing
 Destruction of property
 Insubordination
 Showing disrespect to clients,
customers, or public
 Inappropriate behavior
 Alcohol or illegal drug use
23
CONDUCT: PRACTICAL
GUIDANCE


Accommodation requests are
prospective: Generally, need not rescind
discipline or grades.
An institution may have to provide a
reasonable accommodation to a student
with a disability when discussing
performance or discipline to enable
meaningful discussion and
understanding of the nature of the
performance or conduct problem.
(interpreters etc)
24
BLANKET POLICY APPLICATION


EEOC v. Sears
6.2 Million Dollar Settlement (Largest
Ever)
EEOC v. UPS
Second Class Action this year is Pending
25
ACADEMIC ADJUSMENTS AND
AUXILIARY AIDS

Button v. Board of Regents of Univ. and
Comm. College Sys. of Nev., et al.,2008
U.S. App. LEXIS 26992 (9th Cir. Aug. 14,
2008)

Di LelIa v. Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia
David A. Clarke School of Law, et aI.,
570 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008)
26
ACADEMIC ADJUSMENTS AND
AUXILIARY AIDS Cont.

Simonelli v. Univ. of Cal.- Berkeley, et aI., 2008
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44589 (N.D. CaI. Feb. 14, 2008),
aff'd, 338 Fed. Appx. 673,2009 U.S. App. LEXIS
16048 (9th Cir. July 21, 2009),petition for cert.filed,
Dec. 9,2009 (No. 09-1016)

Hayden v. Redwoods Community College
District, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 835 (N.D. CaI. Jan.
8, 2007)

Melendez v. Monroe College, 2006 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 73040 (E.D.N. Y. Oct. 6, 2006)
27
MODIFICATIONS OF ACAEMIC
AND TECHNICAL STANDARDS



Millington v. Temple University School of
Dentistry, 261 Fed. Appx. 363,2008 U.S. App.
LEXIS 1291 (3d Cir. Jan. 23, 2008), affirming
2006 US. Dist. LEXIS 74926 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 13,
2006) (substantially limited generally), cert.
denied, 129 S. Ct. 419 (2008)
Mershon v. St. Louis University, 442 F. 3d 1069
(8th Cir. 2006)
Hartnett v. Fielding Graduate Institute, 198
Fed. Appx. 89,2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 24128 (2d
Cir. Sept. 21, 2006) (unpublished)
28
MODIFICATIONS OF ACAEMIC AND
TECHNICAL STANDARDS Cont.



Betts v. Rector and Visitors of the
University of Virginia, 145 Fed. Appx. 7,
2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 16456 (4th Cir.
2005) (unpublished)
Falcone v. University of Minnesota, 388
F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2004)
McInerney v. Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, No: 1 :05 CV-1267, 2010 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 16950 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010)
29
MODIFICATIONS OF ACAEMIC AND
TECHNICAL STANDARDS Cont.

Oser v. Capital University Law School,
No. 2:09-cv-709, 2009 US. Dist. LEXIS
86425 (E.D.Oh. Sept. 8,2009)

Strahl v. Trustees of Purdue University,
No: 4:07-cv-61-AS, 2009 US. Dist. LEXIS
34231(N.D. In. Apr. 22, 2009)
30
MODIFICATIONS OF ACAEMIC AND
TECHNICAL STANDARDS Cont.



Yount v. Regents University. Inc., No.
CV-08-8011-PCT-DGC, 2009 US. Dist.
LEXIS 32846 (D. Ariz. Apr. 14,2009).
Hogan v. Ogden. et aI., 2008 US. Dist.
LEXIS 58359 (E.D. Wash. July 20, 2008)
Chen v. Univ. of Wash., 2008 US. Dist.
LEXIS 16902 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 5, 2008).
31
MODIFICATIONS OF ACAEMIC AND
TECHNICAL STANDARDS Cont.


Toledo v. University of Puerto Rico,
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4248 (D.P.R. Jan.
18,2008)
Long v. Howard University, 439 F.
Supp.2d 68 (D.D.C. 2006), motion for new
trial denied Long v. Howard Univ., 512 F.
Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007), aff'd, 550 F.3d
21 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
32
CORE ELEMENTS




Example: University of West Virginia
University engineering student who could
not work with a team was allowed to
forego the team project.
When he could not maintain employment
as an engineer he sued and won.
WVU is now paying his tuition for another
degree.
Teamwork was a core element in the
classroom and in the work world.
33
PERFORMANCE




It is generally inappropriate to focus discussion
about performance or conduct problems on the
disability.
Focus should be on correcting performance
problems and avoiding future misconduct.
Emphasizing the disability risks distracting from
the primary focus on the problem and can result
in a “regarded as” claim.
It is generally preferable for the person to raise the
disability rather than the entity.
34
LIMITS OF DEFERENCE

Yount v. Regents University. Inc., No. CV-088011-PCT-DGC, 2009 US. Dist. LEXIS 32846
(D. Ariz. Apr. 14, 2009)

Toledo v. University of Puerto Rico, 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 4248 (D.P.R. Jan. 18,2008)

Long v. Howard University, 439 F. Supp.2d 68
(D.D.C. 2006), motion for new trial denied Long
v. Howard Univ., 512 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C.
2007), aff'd, 550 F.3d 21 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
35
DOJ and DEFERENCE

Institutions will receive much more
deference if there is a well written
reason for academic decision making.

Decision making committees should have
a good balance of people from campus
who can make objective decisions.
36
Best Practices Adjustments




Determine with students appropriate
academic accommodations and services.
Maintain records that document the
student’s plan for the provision of selected
accommodations.
Consider time-limited provisional
accommodations pending documentation.
Student is responsible for notifying you if
accommodations are not effective.
37
TESTING



Falchenberg v. New York State
Department of Education, 338 Fed.
Appx. 11,2009 US. App. LEXIS 12213
(2nd Cir. June 8, 2009), cert. denied, 130
S. Ct.1059, (2010)
Enyart v. National Conference of Bar
Examiners, Case No. C 09-5191 CRB
(N.D. Ca. Feb. 4, 2010)
Frank v. University of Toledo, 621 F.
Supp. 2d 475 (N.D. Ohio 2007)
38
HOUSING

Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland Univ. Bd. Of
Trs., Case No. 08-14922, 2009 US. Dist.
LEXIS 119971 (RD. Mich. December
23,2009)
39
INTERACTIVE PROCESS

Cutrera v. Louisiana State University,
429 F.3d 108 (5th Cir. 2005)
40
ACCESSIBILITY

Klingler v. Director. Dept. of Revenue,
433 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 2006) (parking
placards), supplemental opinion at 455
F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2006)

Eames v. Southern University and
Agricultural and Mechanical College,
No. 09-56-JJB, 2009 LEXIS 97452 (M.D.
La .. Oct. 16, 2009)
41
ACCESSIBILITY Cont.

Huezo v. Los Angeles Community College,
o. CV 04-9772 MMM (JWJx), 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 81520 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9,2008),
injunction granted at 2008 US. Dist. LEXIS
81513 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2008).

Kuchmas, et al. v. Towson Univ .. et aI., 553
F. Supp. 2d 556 (D. Md. 2008)
42
ACCESSIBILITY Cont.

Cherry v. City College of San Francisco,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76500 (N.D. Cal.
Oct. 1,2007)

Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of
America v. University of Michigan/U.S.
v. University of Michigan, No. 07-11702
(E.D. Mi. March 10,2008) (consent decree)

Swathmore College Consent Decree
43
Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America v.
University of Michigan/U.S. v. University of
Michigan, No. 07-11702
(E.D. Mi. March 10, 2008) (consent decree)
44
Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America v.
University of Michigan/U.S. v. University of
Michigan, Cont.




Provide training on consent decree at the start of
each football season.
Market accessible information on all publications
and the website.
Retain no more than 40 wheelchair and companion
seats for game day change-outs only offered to
persons with disabilities (specifies how many in which
section).
Allow single seat sales at the same time that other
45
seats become eligible for single seat sales.
Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America v.
University of Michigan/U.S. v. University of
Michigan, Cont.



Submit to MPVA and Unites States a written
report through 2012 of all work, copies of
marketing, photographs, and proposed
changes to physical structure, policy or
practice.
Submit a detailed description of the number,
location and total cost of each ticket sold for
accessible seating.
Mail Surveys to all individuals who purchase
accessible seating through the 2012 season.
46
SWATHMORE COLLEGE
EVACUATION PLAN: CONSENT
DECREE






The Roles of Department, Dep. Of Public Safety
and The Borough Of Swarthmore's Police and Fire
Departments
Emergency Communication And Alerting
Procedures
Campus-wide plans for Emergency Evacuation
Evacuation Procedures (PEPS)
Training
Contact Information and Emergency Numbers
47
PERSONAL EMERGENCY PLANS
(PEPS) for PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES

Personal Emergency Plans (PEPs) for
Persons with Disabilities
 Although not required, faculty, staff,
and students are encouraged to
identify their concerns about
evacuation in case of an emergency,
and to develop a PEP that is effective
for them.
48
(PEPS) for PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES Cont.







Your schedule
The types of assistance you might need in an
emergency
Emergency contact numbers
Where you keep your emergency supplies
How to operate your assistive devices, if
applicable
The size and weight of your assistive
devices, in addition to whether or not they are
collapsible,
in case they have to be transported
Location of Areas of Rescue Assistance and
Safe Wait Areas
49
(PEPS) for PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES Cont.




Identifying the safest area(s) located on each
floor within the building(s) where a person with
disabilities can await assistance from emergency
response personnel.
Designating a means to inform emergency
response personnel (e.g., police, fire) of the
locations of any person(s) requiring assistance.
Identification of volunteer Rescue Assistants.
Location of back-up medical or assistive
equipment and medications.
50
(PEPS) for PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES Cont.




Use of an optional personal GPS locator. In
an emergency, Public Safety can pinpoint the
person's location so that first-responders can
more easily find and evacuate them. In the event
of an emergency, the individual may press the
"panic button" on the device for immediate
notification at the Communications Center at
Public Safety
Training in transfer techniques, if needed, for
use of the Evac Chair.
Practice/drill opportunities.
A copy of all PEPs will be located in the Office
of Public Safety and are only available on a
'need-to-know' basis in an emergency.
51
BEST PRACTICES EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS







Plan, Develop, Implement
Table Top Exercises
Discuss disabilities: Inquire how you might make
it easier for those with specific types of
disabilities
Complete drills
Record what is needed to improve
Implement improvements
Safety procedures must be reviewed
52
RETALIATION

Mershon v. St. Louis University, 442 F. 3d
1069 (8th Cir. 2006)

Yount v. Regents University, Inc., No. CV-088011-PCT-DGC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32846
(D. Ariz. Apr. 14, 2009)

Di LeIla v. Univ. of the Dist. Of Columbia
David A. Clarke School of Law, et aI., 570 F.
Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008)
53
RETALIATION

Frank v. University of Toledo, 621 F.
Supp. 2d 475 (N.D. Ohio 2007)

Melendez v. Monroe College, 2006 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 73040 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6,2006)

Bayon v. State University of New York,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18980 (W.D.N.Y.
April 13, 2006)
54
DIRECT THREAT





Direct Threat is “a significant risk to health or
safety of others that cannot be eliminated by
policy, practice or procedure.”
Must be established by individualized
determination.
An individual is NOT “qualified” under the ADA if
his or her health conditions present a direct threat to
him/herself or to others. Chevron USA, Inc. v.
Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002); and
No reasonable accommodations would eliminate
or substantially limit the threat.
Note: Self is only addressed in employment.
55
DIRECT THREAT Cont.
 Direct
threat factors:
 Duration
of risk;
 Nature/severity of potential harm;
 Likelihood that potential harm will
occur; and
 Imminence of potential harm.

The probability an event will occur and why
harm cannot be not mitigated.
56
OCR and DIRECT THREAT





Institutions must rely on objective evidence best medical evidence.
Students must meet essential academic and
technical elements of the
institution/program/course.
Students are NOT qualified if they pose a direct
that cannot be mitigated.
Preamble and Title II talks about direct threat but
does not have threat to self language. OCR has
not Provided guidance on threat to self.
If the student says I am going to engage in illegal
activity or harm myself or someone else, be sure
that you have a policy to address it and then
implement it consistently.
57
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

Toledo v. Sanchez, 454 F.3d 24 (1st Cir.
2006)

Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, 475 F.3d 524 (3d Cir. 2007)
58
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Kuchmas, et al. v. Towson Univ .. et aI.,
553 F. Supp. 2d 556 (D. Md. 2008)

Long v. Howard University, 512 F. Supp.
2d 1 (D.D.C. Sept. 5,2007), aff'd, 550 F.3d
21 (D.C.Cir. 2008)
59
SERVICE ANIMALS

Springfield-Greene County Health Dept, Cox
Health Systems and Wal-Mart Supercenter,
Case No. 6:08-CV-03292-RED, 2009 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 98078 (S.D. Mo. October 21, 2009)

Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, 505 F.3d
1173 (11th Cir. 2007)
60
CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY

Kaufmann v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 2007 WL
1933913 (3d Cir. July 5, 2007)
Compare with:

EEOC v. City of Detroit
61
SEGWAYS

DOJ has proposed to require
businesses to allow individuals with
mobility disabilities to use segways in
places of public accommodation.
62
KINDLE and PRINCETON



Princeton offered a pilot program Fall 09 to
test utility of kindle DX in the classroom.
NFB and DOJ claimed violated ADA and 504
because kindle is inaccessible to visually
impaired students.
Princeton agreed to:


Not require, purchase, or incorporate in the
curriculum the Kindle DX until it is fully accessible.
Provide visually impaired students with a
dedicated electronic book reader in the class to
access and acquire the same information.
63
WEB SITE ACCESSIBILITY






Images and animations. Use the ALT attribute to
describe the function of each visual. Images have
embedded text explanations.
Image maps. Use client-side MAP (image map
processor) and text for hotspots (active regions in
images containing links or other types of interactivity).
Multimedia. Provide captioning and transcripts of
audio, and descriptions of video. Eliminating Flash.
Hypertext links. Use text that makes sense when
read out of context. For example, avoid “click here.”
Page organization. Use headings, lists and
consistent structure. Be sure they are descriptive.
Use CSS (cascading style sheets) for layout and style
when possible.
64
WEB SITE ACCESSIBILITY Cont.






Graphs and charts. Summarize or use the longdesc
(long description) attribute.
Scripts, applets and plug-ins. Provide alternative
content in case active features are inaccessible or
unsupported.
Frames. Use NOFRAMES (displaying text intended
for frames in Web documents for those using
browsers that cannot read frames) and meaningful
titles.
Tables. Make line-by-line reading sensible.
Summarize.
Check your work. Validate. Use tools, checklists and
guidelines at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG.
65
quick tips also are at:
EDUCATING STUDENTS





Develop clear/simple policies and
procedures.
Disseminate policies/procedures via all
relevant campus media.
Keep all referral, documentation, and
disability services information current.
Ensure eligibility criteria and procedures
for accessing accommodations are clearly
delineated and disseminated campus-wide.
Provide regular orientations for new
students.
66
EDUCATING FACULTY/STAFF




Inform of legal responsibilities and
consequences.
Educate regarding student rights and
responsibilities.
Collaborate with faculty when
accommodation requests may
fundamentally alter academic
requirements.
Address need for consistency.
67
EDUCATING FACULTY/STAFF Cont.



Inform faculty about services available
to students with disabilities.
Train administration and staff to enhance
institutional understanding of student
rights.
Train faculty/staff to recognize
accommodation requests and refer
students to disability services.
68
BEST PRACTICES






Interview students regarding functional limitations.
Provide reasonable accommodations promptly
without compromising essential elements of the
subject program.
Use service delivery model that facilitates student
independence.
Obtain authorizations and contact professionals.
Know when to engage your own expert.
Consult with Risk Management before denying
accommodation requests.
69
Melissa L. Frost, J.D.
Loss Control ADA Specialist
State of Utah
Division of Risk Management
5120 State Office Building
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Case References Provided by Shelly Jackson, J.D.
of U.S. Department Of Justice
Phone: 801.538.3589
Fax: 801.538.9597
Email: mlfrost@utah.gov
70