Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, Louisiana Tech University, and the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

TITLE II COVERAGE AND FINDINGS

1. The Attorney General is responsible for administering and enforcing title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq. (“title II”),and the regulations implementing title II, 28 C.F.R. Part 35.

2. Under title II of the ADA, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

3. The University, located in Ruston, Louisiana, and the Board are public entities under the meaning of title II.

4. The United States has determined that the University’s exclusion of a student who is blind from its course offerings through the use of MyOMLab, an online learning product that was inaccessible to the Complainant, violates title II of the ADA. The online learning product, which was available to other students twenty-four hours per day, was used for tutorials on course subject matter; was required for the completion of homework in the course (including an interactive aspect that allowed for immediate feedback to students on the correctness of answers provided and an opportunity to re-answer any questions for full credit); and was used for the administration of tests in the course. On March 15, 2011, the Complainant raised concerns about the inaccessibility of MyOMLab with the professor, who directed the Complainant to consult with the MyOMLab vendor for resolution of the issue. The Complainant first did so that same day. On March 25, 2011, still unable to access MyOMLab despite contact with its vendor, the Complainant notified University administrators in the University’s Office of Disability Services of his lack of access to the online learning product.

5. The United States has determined that the Complainant’s lack of access to the online learning product persisted nearly one month into the University quarter, at which time the Complainant felt that he was so far behind in his studies and coursework that he was compelled to withdraw from the course.

6. During the pendency of the investigation of the complaint referenced above, the professor who deployed MyOMLab also distributed inaccessible, hard copy course materials to the Complainant in a different and subsequent course. The inaccessible materials, copied by the professor for distribution immediately prior to the class session, were distributed during class for students to use during that class session and as out-of-class study materials for a future exam. When contacted by the Complainant to receive the materials in an accessible, electronic format, the professor delegated to another student in that course the responsibility of providing the materials to the Complainant, which ultimately occurred several days after the class session in which they were provided. The delay prevented the Complainant from having the same opportunity that students without disabilities had to participate in the class session and to study and prepare for the exam.

7. In the course of the Department’s investigation of facts brought to its attention by the Complainant, the Department has identified additional disability-related University policies and/or practices (including, but not limited to, the assurance of the delivery of agreed-upon modifications for students with disabilities) to be addressed in this Agreement.

8. The University disputes the Department’s determinations and the University’s entering into this Agreement shall not be construed as an admission of liability or wrongdoing.