Recent Court Decision Highlights Schools' Responsibilities Under ADA

The Iowa Supreme Court recently determined that a chiropractic school violated a student's civil rights when the school failed accommodate program changes requested by a blind student.

The case involved a blind student at Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport, Iowa.  The student requested that the school make accommodations for his visual disability.  When the school denied the requested accommodations, the student filed a complaint with the local civil rights commission.  Ultimately, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the school had denied the student's participation in its programs on the basis of his disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and similar state and local civil rights laws.

The principle question addressed by the Court was whether the student was qualified to participate in the chiropractic program with reasonable accommodation.  An accommodation may not be reasonable if it imposes undue financial or administrative burdens on the school, or if it requires a fundamental alteration in the nature of the program offered.  Neither party raised the issue of an undue burden with respect to the possible accommodation, therefore the only issue considered by the Court was whether accommodation would constitute a fundamental alteration of the school's program.

The Court recognized that it is appropriate to give some deference to the school's professional or academic judgment when determining whether an accommodation would constitute a fundamental alteration of the school's program.  However, the extent to which that deference is appropriate depends upon several factors.  The school has an obligation to seek out suitable means of reasonably accommodating individuals with disabilities.  The school must submit a factual record indicating that it conscientiously carried out this obligation.  Furthermore, schools cannot merely look to accepted academic norms in exploring reasonable accommodations because reasonable alternatives may often involve new approaches or devices beyond the existing accepted academic norms.

The student requested accommodation for certain visual components of the curriculum.  The student's proposal included a sighted reader and modifications of practical examinations.  The school determined that the student's proposal would not constitute an acceptable accommodation for certain diagnostic portions of program, and that the student would ultimately reach a point after which he would no longer be able to meet the requirements for advancement in the program.  After making an additional accommodation request to the school's president without success, the student withdrew from the program.

The school cited various reasons for denying the student's request.  It expressed doubt that the student could use a sighted reader to assist with the diagnostic portion of the program, in that this would place too much responsibility on the assistant.  The school also stated that the requested accommodation would violate the school's recently adopted technical standards, and that a deviation from such standards would compromise the school's compliance with its accrediting agency.

In ruling against the school, the civil rights commission and the Court found that the school failed to engage in the interactive investigative process required by federal and state disability law.  Based on the specific facts, they determined that the requested accommodation would not fundamentally alter the school's curriculum because the school had previously graduated blind students, albeit prior to the school's recent curriculum changes.  The court found no evidence in the record that accommodating the student's request would cause adverse actions with respect to the school's accrediting agency.  The Court also noted that there are blind medical doctors and medical students.  In the Court's view, the school could have done more to determine if there were alternatives available to reasonably accommodate the student through the program.

What can other schools learn from this decision?

Upon receiving a request for a student accommodation, it is critical that the school evaluate the request for academic accommodation on a case-by-case basis.  Schools are still entitled to some deference for their professional or academic judgment.  However, as shown by the Iowa Supreme Court, this deference will be given little weight if the school fails to conscientiously fulfill its obligation to evaluate the specific request.

Schools must have an effective policy in place detailing the procedures for addressing requests for academic accommodations.  Staff members and faculty must be educated to ensure that they understand this policy and their obligations as they relate to evaluating accommodation requests.   As part of this policy, schools must designate a Section 504 coordinator to be responsible for processing and evaluating the request.  The policy statement should include contact information for students or prospective students seeking an accommodation, a general description of the process used for evaluating the request, the timeline within which the school will respond, and the process by which the student can seek a redetermination or submit a grievance if the request is denied.

Each request for accommodation must be individually evaluated on a fact-specific basis. The student, school administrators, instructors and third party service providers should all be engaged in a collaborative effort to determine whether reasonable accommodations can be made without creating a fundamental alteration to the education program.  If the school determines that a reasonable accommodation cannot be made, then it must maintain a detailed account of the student's request, the parties involved in evaluating the request, the alternatives considered, and the specific reasons for determining that the accommodation is not reasonable.  

The case is Palmer College of Chiropractic v. Davenport Civil Rights Commission, No. 12-0924., June 27, 2014 - Iowa S.Ct.