May 17, 2005

Dr. Priscilla J. Bell

President

Highline Community College

2400 South 240^th Street

Des Moines, Washington 98198

Re:      Highline Community College

            OCR Reference No. 10052007

Dear Dr. Bell:

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has completed its investigation of this complaint against Highline Community College.  The complaint alleged that the college discriminated against a student on the basis of her disability - a hearing impairment - by failing to provide her with auxiliary aids to ensure that the communication of classroom information was as effective for her as for other students.

OCR conducted this investigation under the authority of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.  Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and activities receiving financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (Department).  Title II prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.  The college is a recipient of federal funding from the Department for purposes of Section 504 and is a public entity for purposes of Title II.  The  Title II provisions are interpreted in a manner consistent with those of Section 504. 

In reaching our decision, we considered information and testimony provided by the student, college faculty and staff, and other students.  Based on our investigation, we have determined that the findings support a conclusion that the college did not fully comply with Section 504 and Title II with respect to the issue investigated.  The college has agreed to take the actions set forth in the enclosed settlement agreement to fully resolve the compliance concerns that OCR identified.  Upon implementation of the agreement, the college will be deemed to be in compliance with the provisions of Section 504 and Title II with respect to the issue investigated in this complaint.

Findings of Fact

The student has a disability, a hearing impairment.  She was enrolled in the college’s paralegal program beginning in the summer of 2004.  Prior to the fall quarter of 2004, the student requested word-for-word real-time captioning for her fall quarter classes and she provided the college with medical information that supported her request.  The college provided her with a different type of service, an in-class transcription service, based on a meaning for meaning system.  After approximately 5 weeks of classes, the student notified the college that she did not believe that the transcription service that was being provided to her was adequate and that the transcription providers were leaving out important information.  The student reiterated her request for a word-for-word real-time captioning so that she could follow the lecture and class discussion.

During its investigation, OCR reviewed several examples of the written product that was given to the student (and displayed during the class) using the meaning for meaning transcription service.  OCR then compared the transcript with audiotapes, obtained from another student, of lectures for the classes in which the student was enrolled.  We determined that the written transcripts did not afford the student with communication that was as effective as the communication afforded to other students.  The written transcripts did not include important legal terminology that was discussed in class, examples used by the instructor to illustrate legal concepts that were discussed, and questions and answers that would have assisted the student in understanding the relatively complex legal concepts that were the subject of her paralegal classes.  Also, the investigation did not establish that the service selected by the college was as effective as that requested by the student.

Discussion and Conclusion

The standards under Title II, at 28 CFR 35.160, require that 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” and that 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.”

The standards under Section 504, at 34 CFR 104.44(d), are similar and require the college to ensure that no student with a disability is denied the benefits of or excluded from participation in the college's education program because of the absence of educational auxiliary aids for students with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills. That section also provides that auxiliary aids may include interpreters or other effective methods of making orally delivered materials available to students with hearing disabilities.

In determining whether the college complied with the requirements of Title II and Section 504 with regard to the issue investigated, OCR considered the extent of the student’s disability and the nature and complexity of the courses in which the student was enrolled.  The evidence established that the student has a profound hearing loss and that she provided medical information to the college indicating that she would be best served by the provision of real-time, word for word captioning.  We also determined that the courses in which the student was enrolled involved moderately complex content with emphasis on information received through lecture, classroom question and answer, and small group discussions and that the provision of accurate, concurrent, and relatively complete transcription services would be an important auxiliary aid for the student in her paralegal courses.

From our review of the transcripts provided to the student by the meaning for meaning transcription service, we determined that the service provided to the student contained many instances of missing or inaccurately interpreted information.  We also identified many instances where information was summarized to the point that it did not accurately reflect, in “real time,” what was occurring in the lecture or classroom at the time the information was transcribed.

We find that the evidence did not reflect that the service selected by the college provided communication to the student that was as effective as the communication provided to other students.  We also find that the evidence did not establish that the service was as effective as that requested by the student.  We therefore conclude that the college did not adhere to the requirements of Title II and Section 504 with respect to providing the complainant with the auxiliary aids in her paralegal program courses.

This concludes OCR’s investigation of this matter.  The findings and conclusions of this letter are limited to the specific facts and circumstances of this case.  Pursuant to section 203 of    Title II, the complainant may file a private suit irrespective of OCR’s decision in this matter.

As noted above, the college has entered into a settlement agreement that will be monitored by OCR.  We appreciate your cooperation in this case and the assistance that we received from college faculty and staff during our investigation and resolution of this matter, in particular the assistance of Ivan Gorne, vice president for student services.  If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Jacklyn McCraw, equal opportunity specialist, at (206) 220-7934 or Tim Sell, attorney, at (206) 220-4780.

Sincerely

Gary D. Jackson,

Director, Seattle Office

Western Division

Enclosure:  Settlement Agreement

cc:       Ivan Gorne, Vice President for Student Services

            Derek L. Edwards, Assistant Attorney General