UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

5 POST OFFICE SQUARE, 8TH FLOOR

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109-3921

April 30, 2013

Dr. Martha McLeod, President

Office of the President
Asnuntuck Community College
170 Elm Street
Enfield, Connecticut 06082

Re: Complaint No. 01-10-2084

Asnuntuck Community College

Dear Dr. McLeod:

This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has
completed its investigation of the above-referenced complaint that was filed on August 26, 2010, against
Asnuntuck Community College (College). The Complainant (Student) alleged that the College
discriminated against her, on the basis of disability, by failing to provide agreed-upon accommodations in
several classes. Following our investigation, OCR identified the compliance concerns that are described
in more detail below. The College has agreed to take the steps outlined in the enclosed Voluntary
Resolution Agreement (Agreement) to address these concerns.

OCR investigated this complaint according to our jurisdiction under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 104 (Section 504), as well as Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. Part 35 (Title II).
Both Section 504 and Title II prohibit discrimination based on disability. The College is subject to Section
504 because it receives Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education and it is also
subject to Title II because it is a public entity that operates an educational system.

OCR investigated the following legal issue:

Whether the College discriminated against the Student, on the basis of her disabilities, by failing to
provide her with appropriate academic adjustments and auxiliary aids and services, so as to afford
her an equal opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, the educational programs and
activities at the College, in violation of 34 C.F.R. Section 104.44 and 28 C.F.R. Section 35.130.

OCR reviewed documents provided by the Student and interviewed her and her parents on several
occasions. OCR also reviewed documents provided by the College at many junctures during the
investigation, and interviewed College staff, including the Coordinator (Coordinator) of the Office for
Disability Services (ODS); the Dean of Students (Dean); the Department Chair (Chair) for Arts and
Sciences at the College; and a number of the Student’s professors.

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness
by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
Page 2 of 6; Dr. McLeod, OCR Complaint No. 01-10-2084

Legal Standards

The Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. Section 104.44 and the Title II regulation at 28 C.F.R. Section
35.130 have been interpreted to require recipients to provide academic adjustments (reasonable
accommodations) to qualified college students with disabilities who request them and provide
appropriate documentation in support of their request. To be entitled to academic
adjustments/accommodations, a postsecondary student with a disability must provide adequate notice
that the accommodations are needed, by informing the postsecondary institution of his or her disability
and identifying needed accommodations. In addition, the postsecondary institution may make
reasonable requests that the student provide the results of medical, psychological or education diagnostic
tests and professional prescriptions that support the existence of a disability and the need for the
requested supports. The institution must also provide fair notice to a student of any deficiencies that the
institution has found in the documentation, in order to give the student a chance to cure them.

Once a student has notified a postsecondary institution of the need for reasonable accommodations, the
institution has an obligation to engage the student in an interactive process to determine the appropriate
accommodations to be provided. The institution should do so in consultation with the student;
additionally, although institutions have flexibility in choosing the specific accommodations they will
provide, they must nonetheless ensure that the accommodation selected is effective.

Beyond engaging in the initial process of establishing the appropriate accommodations, the
postsecondary institution is obligated to ensure that these accommodations are made available and to
respond to problems that arise after the initial accommodations process. Similarly, the student must
remain engaged in an interactive process with the institution beyond the initial stage of determining
what accommodations are appropriate. If the academic adjustments/accommodations are not provided,
or are not effective in meeting the student’s needs, the student should notify the institution as soon as
possible. The student and the institution should work together to resolve the problem, including by, as
appropriate, modifying the accommodations or identifying other effective accommodations to be
provided.

In disputes over the need for specific academic adjustments/accommodations, OCR considers whether
the institution’s process for addressing such circumstances complies with the requirements of Section
504/Title II. In particular, OCR examines whether the institution took reasonable steps to obtain a
professional determination of whether the requested accommodation is necessary for the student to
effectively participate in the recipient’s program, and whether the institution offered an effective
alternative for the accommodation it refused.

Findings of Fact/Analysis

The College’s procedure for obtaining accommodations due to disability required students to submit
documentation of their disabilities, and needed accommodations, to the Coordinator, who would then
determine the appropriate accommodations. The Coordinator then would develop a sheet of agreed-
upon accommodations (Accommodations Sheet) for each semester, which students had to take to each
professor, for their signature.

The Student enrolled at the College in the fall of 2008. She requested accommodations for her
disabilities, which included a hearing impairment and phonological dyslexia, and provided the College
with documentation of both of these disabilities, including audiological assessments, achievement reports
and language assessments.
Page 3 of 6; Dr. McLeod, OCR Complaint No. 01-10-2084

Based on the above documentation, the Coordinator developed an Accommodations Sheet, which
included:

 Extended time on tests and quizzes;

 Extended time on out of class written assignments…;
 Quiet area for tests and quizzes;
 Alternative test(s) such as take home; oral or supplementary assignments, research paper;
student [to] discuss options with each professor;
 FM Unit…in all teaching and group situations;
 Close captions for films; [and]
 Handouts and visuals prior to class (use of Kurzweil to support auditory, language, sequencing
processes).

The Student also alleged that in order to address her language disability (phonological dyslexia), the
College initially agreed to, and did provide, the accommodation of a human reader for tests in language-
based classes, but then took away this accommodation during the Spring 2010 and subsequent
semesters. Documents provided by the College and Student, as well as OCR’s interviews with staff and
the Student, confirmed that, prior to the Spring 2010, the Student had exams read for her in other classes,
such as Psychology I, Intermediate Algebra and Principals of Sociology. Finally, OCR confirmed that when
the Student sought a reader for courses during the Spring 2010, the College refused to provide it.

The College asserted, to the Student and to OCR, that it did not agree to provide this accommodation and
that the Student’s documentation of her disability and requested accommodations did not support a need
for a human reader. The College did acknowledge that it had provided a person to read and clarify test
questions for the Student. According to the College, the reader was limited to one class during the Fall
2009 semester and was provided because the professor for that class had a strong foreign accent which
the Complainant had difficulty understanding due to her hearing impairment. OCR found that, for that
class, the Student took her exams in the Academic Skills Center (ASC) with an ASC staff member reading
and clarifying exams as needed.

As a result, from the Spring 2010 semester on, whether the Student was entitled to a reader during exams
to address her dyslexia became an ongoing dispute during the rest of the Student’s time at the College. As
described below, OCR found that once the College discontinued the reader, it did not otherwise
accommodate the Student’s language disability for in-class exams.

Spring 2010

The Student alleged that many of her accommodations were not provided in the Spring 2010 Sociology
class (Self & Others) and that although she notified ODS of the omissions, ODS did not resolve the
problems. From interviewing the Student and College staff, and reviewing relevant documents, OCR
found that during that class, the Student was not provided with closed captioning, nor an effective
alternative, for three out of five films shown in the class. Additionally, from correspondence between the
Student and Professor, which was provided by both the Student and College, the Professor struggled with
using the FM unit, so that the Student experienced many classes without the unit being used (or, again,
having an effective alternative put in place). Also From the correspondence and OCR interviews with
College staff, OCR also found that the Sociology Professor failed to provide extended time for at least one
test, even though the Accommodations sheet clearly required it.

The Student further alleged that this was the first course in which the College refused to provide her a
reader. OCR confirmed this, and also found that College did not provide an effective alternative
Page 4 of 6; Dr. McLeod, OCR Complaint No. 01-10-2084

accommodation for her language disability during in-class exams. This failure to provide appropriate
accommodations denied the Student the ability to benefit from the class due to her disabilities.

Fall 2010

As specified in her Accommodations sheet above, the Student was to receive alternatives to class tests -
such as take home exams, oral or supplementary assignments, or [substitute] research papers. As also
indicated by the Accommodations sheet, the Student was directed to discuss the appropriate test options
for each class with the assigned professor.

As a general matter, OCR found that this testing accommodation was so general that it did not effectively
inform professors, or the Student, as to what accommodations were actually required. As a result, the
Student, and each of her professors, were put in the position of negotiating the testing accommodations
that each individual professor was willing to provide. OCR found that when the Student raised concerns
to ODS about difficulties that she was having with obtaining testing accommodations (as she did at
various junctures during her Fall 2010 Biology class), ODS did not step in to more clearly define or
facilitate the provision of necessary accommodations. Instead, the Student was told to “self-advocate
with her professors” and develop strong relationships with them so that she and her professors could
determine what would work for each class. Although involving both the Student and Professors in
identifying appropriate testing alternatives may be an appropriate step, the effect in this case was to
improperly put professors in the role of determining which accommodations would and would not be
provided, without a proper assessment or involvement from a disability professional, or intervention by
ODS when the Student and a Professor disputed the type of accommodation that was appropriate.

OCR found that, in the fall of 2010 and during other semesters, some professors responded when the
Student voiced concerns about testing options, and ultimately provided her with alternative test formats,
including take-home assignments in lieu of timed exams. Yet in the Student’s Biology class, she and the
professor were left to negotiate throughout the entire term as to the form of her exam. Rather than
consulting with ODS for clarification, the professor spoke to the Department Chair, who then determined
what testing accommodations would be provided (with only the professor’s input). As a result of this
process, OCR found that in Biology the College did not provide the Student consistent, effective testing
accommodations to address her language disability.

OCR found that the lack of language accommodations, as well as the constant shift in testing approaches,
affected her progress and impeded her ability to benefit from those classes.

Spring 2011

In February of 2011, OCR discussed its initial compliance concerns with the College, and began
negotiating with the College the necessary steps that the College needed to take to address OCR’s
compliance concerns. At that time, the College also re-reviewed the Student’s disability needs and sought
to ensure that she was being properly accommodated in the current, Spring 2011 semester. As OCR
explained to the College, the Student had already reported that she was not receiving necessary
accommodations in the two Spring 2011 classes – Micro-Biology (MB) and Anatomy & Physiology (AP).
OCR, therefore, collected additional data from both the Student and the College to assess whether the
Student received proper accommodations during that semester.

Based on the evidence OCR obtained, the difficulties the Student experienced in obtaining necessary
supports in the MB and AP classes were similar to those described above , and centered on the College’s
failure to develop a common understanding among staff (and the Student) as to the accommodations she
Page 5 of 6; Dr. McLeod, OCR Complaint No. 01-10-2084

would receive, as well the ongoing disagreement as to whether the Student would be afforded a personal
reader during exams.

As noted above, the Student’s disability documentation identified that she has a language processing
deficit, specifically phonological dyslexia, which required some auditory accommodation during testing.
The College re-confirmed that need at the beginning of the Spring 2011 semester when it sent the
Student’s documentation to an expert in hearing and language disabilities, who reported that the Student
required auditory presentation of testing materials. The specialist did not conclude that a human reader
was necessary, but reported that testing should be provided through the Kurzweil (reading) software and
that the Student also should have access to her Professors during exams for purposes of clarifying
directions.

Nonetheless, as of March 2011 and over six weeks into the Spring 2011 semester, the College still had not
resolved, or conveyed to faculty, the method by which the Student would receive reading support for her
examinations. The evidence obtained by OCR indicated that Student had routinely requested a human
reader during her exams, beginning as early as the fall of 2009, and that the several professors afforded
her a reader during exams and subsequent semesters. Although the College stopped providing the
Student a reader altogether, as of middle of the Spring 2010 semester, it did not provide an effective
alternative during tests and exams in classes where one was needed, including MB and AP in the Spring of
2011. The College asserted to OCR that it would have made Kurzweil available to the Student during the
Spring 2011 semester – consistent with the direction provided by the hearing and language expert in
March 2011 – but that the Student had made clear that she did not want, and would not avail herself of,
Kurzweil. The Student disagreed, and OCR did not obtain any evidence to support the College’s
contention. Rather, OCR concluded that the College did not provide the Student Kurzweil, or any other
effective alternative (to the reader), during her exams in MB and AP.

Additionally, OCR found that the accommodations developed by the College required the Student to
choose between obtaining clarification of directions from the professors (a need that was established in
your initial documentation to ODS and confirmed by the specialist’s March 2011 report), or taking
quizzes, exams and practicums in a quiet area (as stated in her Accommodations sheet). The Student’s
need for both accommodations was documented, and she should not have had to choose between them.
Thus, the failure to provide testing accommodations in MB and AP denied the Student the ability to fully
benefit from these two classes.

Conclusion and Resolution

Based on the foregoing, OCR found that the College did not fully accommodate the Student in many of her
courses, as identified above and as required under Section 504 and Title II.

In order to address OCR’s compliance concerns, OCR negotiated a resolution with the College, through
which the College agreed to further revise its Policies and Procedures for accommodating students with
disabilities, train staff on the revised Policies and Procedures, and compensate the Student for classes in
which the Student was not properly accommodated. OCR will monitor the College’s fulfillment of each of
the responsive steps specified in the Agreement.

This concludes OCR’s investigation of the complaint, and should not be interpreted to address the
College’s compliance with any other regulatory provision or to address any issues other than those
addressed in this letter. This letter sets forth OCR’s determination in an individual OCR case. This letter
is not a formal statement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or construed as such. OCR’s
formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR official and made available to the public.
Page 6 of 6; Dr. McLeod, OCR Complaint No. 01-10-2084

Please note that the complainant may file a private suit in federal court, whether or not OCR finds a
violation.

Please be advised that the College may not harass, coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against any
individual because he or she has filed a complaint or participated in the complaint resolution process. If
this happens, the Complainant may file another complaint alleging such treatment.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related
correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, we will seek to
protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information, which, if released, could
reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Meighan McCrea, Civil Rights Attorney, at
(617) 289-0052 or Meighan.McCrea@ed.gov. You may also contact me at (617) 289-0111. Please refer
to the complaint number in any contact with OCR.

Sincerely,

/s/

Thomas J. Hibino
Regional Director

Enclosure
 Voluntary Resolution Agreement
Asnuntuck College
OCR Case Number 01-10-2084

Asnuntuck Community College (College) agrees to implement this Voluntary Resolution

Agreement to resolve the issues investigated by the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil
Rights (OCR), in the above referenced case number, according to OCR’s jurisdiction under Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. Part 104
(Section 504) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and its implementing
regulation 28 C.F.R. Part 35 (Title II).

I. POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND TRAINING

A. The College will revise its “Process for Working with Students with Disabilities” document to
more specifically describe the process to be followed when a student with a disability wishes to
request an academic adjustment and/or auxiliary aids and services (aids); and of the respective
responsibilities of the students, administrators, faculty, staff and the College’s Student Disabilities
Services Office (DSO) with respect to accommodating students with disabilities.

1) The revisions will include:

a. Explicit notice that students may inform the Student Disabilities Services Office
of their disability and request accommodations at any time (although, as
currently noted, accommodations are not retroactive);

b. How the College incorporates input from the individual claiming a disability;

c. That when a request for an accommodation is denied,

(ii) The College will explain the reasons for the denial, in writing, to the
student; and
(iii) If the request is denied because the College deems the documentation
that the student provided is deficient, the College will explain why it is
deficient so that the student can cure any such deficiencies.

d. That the College, through its faculty and staff, is obligated to implement approved
academic adjustments;

e. That faculty and staff must report to and work with the Coordinator of DSO about
any concerns that may arise with regard to the provision of academic adjustments/
auxiliary aids and services, such as understanding an approved accommodation
and how an approved accommodation should be implemented, and concerns about
whether an approved accommodation is a fundamental alteration of an essential
requirement of the course; and

f. That pending the resolution of any dispute concerning approved academic

adjustments such adjustments will continue to be provided.
Page 2 – Resolution Agreement; Asnuntuck Community College; Complaint No. 01-10-2084

2) By August 1, 2013, the College will provide a revised draft of the “Process for Working with
Students with Disabilities” document to OCR. The College will adopt the final process
description within 30 days after receiving approval from OCR.

3) Once adopted, the revised “Process for Working with Students with Disabilities” document
will be posted on the College website and in other appropriate media including the College
catalog and student and faculty handbooks.

4) The College will also disseminate the revised “Process for Working with Students with
Disabilities” by memo to all faculty and staff within 30 days of OCR’s approval.

B. By October 1, 2013, a mandatory professional development workshop will be presented to

administrators, faculty and staff which will include training on the revised “Process for Working
with Students with Disabilities.”

1) The training will include:

a. The legal obligations of the College under Section 504 and Title II, including:

(i) the College’s procedures for students requesting academic

adjustments and aids;
(ii) that department chairs, instructors and/or staff cannot unilaterally
deny approved academic adjustments or aids, nor may students be
required to negotiate with instructors or staff about the provision of
adjustments or aids that have been approved by the Disability
Services Office; and
(iii) the obligations of College faculty and staff to report any concerns that
may arise with regard to the provision of academic adjustments and
aids, including the identity of the person(s) to whom the faculty and
staff shall report such concerns;

b. The steps that faculty member or instructor or other College staff should take if:

(i) he/she does not understand an accommodation;

(ii) he/she does not understand how to implement an accommodation;
(iii) he/she needs help implementing an accommodation; and/or
(iv) he/she disputes the provision of an approved academic adjustment
and/or has a concern that the approved academic adjustment is a
fundamental alteration of an essential requirement.

2) No later than 30-days prior to the training, the College will provide to OCR, for review and
approval:

a. The name(s) and qualification(s) of the trainer(s) and the materials that will be
used at the training, for OCR’s review and approval; and
Page 3 – Resolution Agreement; Asnuntuck Community College; Complaint No. 01-10-2084

b. A list of the administrators, faculty and staff to be trained, by name and title,
including the College’s Coordinator of Student Disabilities Services (if any of these
individuals are not able to attend the training then the College will ensure they
receive substitute training within thirty (30) days).

3) Within 30-days after the training, the College will provide OCR:

a. Copies of all documentation relating to its completion of the training referenced

in above. The documentation shall include: a) copies of all training materials
used including the credentials of the trainer(s), and b) sign-in sheets indicating
the name and title of each participant.

b. A description of how the College will ensure that faculty and staff receive on-
going training in the areas detailed in paragraph (C)(1) above, as well as how
and when new employees of the College will be trained on the College’s
obligations under Section 504 and Title II.

B. By October 1, 2013, the College will provide OCR with a process describing how it will
ensure that new employees of the College are trained on the College’s obligations under
Section 504 and Title II, including the obligations described at Paragraph (B)(1).

II. THE STUDENT

A. The College will reimburse the Complainant in the amount of $2,094.00, representing the
tuition cost (and associated Lab Fees) for the following classes in which the Complainant did
not receive full accommodations as agreed-upon by the College:

a. “Self and Others” (Spring 2010)

b. Biology (Fall 2010)
c. Anatomy & Physiology (Spring 2011)
d. Microbiology (Spring 2011)

B. The College shall reimburse the Student up to $ 300.00 for private counseling/therapy
sessions she accessed -- between the Spring 2010 and Spring 2011 semesters -- following the
failures of the College to fully accommodate her to the extent agreed-upon. The specific
amount of the reimbursement will be based on the Complainant’s out of pocket expenses (i.e.,
that not paid by the Complainant’s insurance) up to $300.00 as documented in bills/receipts
that the Complainant shall provide to the College. The College will provide the reimbursement
within 30 days following the Complainant’s submission of such documentation.

III. GENERAL PROVISIONS

The College understands that OCR will not close the monitoring of this agreement until OCR
determines that the College has fulfilled the terms of this agreement and is in compliance with the
regulation implementing Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. Sections 104.44, which was at issue in this case.
Page 4 – Resolution Agreement; Asnuntuck Community College; Complaint No. 01-10-2084

The College understands that by signing this agreement, it agrees to provide data and other
information to OCR in a timely manner in accordance with the reporting requirements of this
agreement. Further, the College understands that during the monitoring of this agreement, if
necessary, OCR may visit the College, interview staff and students, and request such additional
reports and/or data as are necessary for OCR to determine whether the College has fulfilled the
terms of this agreement and is in compliance with the regulations implementing Section 504,
which were at issue in this case.

The College understands and acknowledges that OCR may initiate administrative enforcement or
judicial proceedings to enforce the specific terms and obligations of this Agreement. Before
initiating administrative enforcement (34 C.F.R. §§ 100.9, 100.10), or judicial proceedings to
enforce this Agreement, OCR shall give the College written notice of the alleged breach and a
minimum of sixty (60) calendar days to cure the alleged breach.

For Asnuntuck Community College:

/s/ _4/26/2013____
President of the College Date