[nfbmi-talk] Fw: could i have this in accessable format?

[joe harcz Comcast]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ussery, Karla 
To: joe harcz Comcast 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 4:34 PM
Subject: RE: could i have this in accessable format?


Dear Mr. Harcz:

 

If you are seeking a copy of a letter from our agency, then that would constitute a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA.  Those requests are not processed out of individual OCR offices, at least initially.  They may end up being processed by the individual office that handled the complaint at issue.  Instead, you make your request to a centralized location, using the contacts below.

 

You have in the past expressed a desire for contacts to be by email.  If you wish to file a request by email, you may direct your request to the following email address:  EDFOIAManager at ed.gov



Requests may also be sent via fax to (202) 401-0920 or via mail to the following address:

U.S. Department of Education
Office of Management
Regulatory Information Management Services
400 Maryland Avenue, SW, LBJ 2W220
Washington, DC 20202-4536
ATTN: FOIA Public Liaison 

Please include with your request notice that you have a disability and that you need the response to your request in a format accessible to you, and please explain what that would be for you individually so that the Department can issue you a response in an appropriate format.

 

If you would like additional information on the Freedom of Information Act process, I believe it is available at:

 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/foia/foiatoc.html

 

I hope this information is helpful to you,

 

Karla Ussery

Team Leader

OCR Cleveland

 

From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:26 PM
To: Ussery, Karla
Subject: could i have this in accessable format?

 

I 
UNiTrED STATES D!CPA TMENT OF EDU(:ATION 
Diane Y. Bower, Esq. 
OFfiCE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS ! 
Clf~VELANI) onree I 
600 SUPERIOR AVENUE EAST, SUITE 750 
CLEVElAND, OHIO 44114-2611 
The Law Offices of Marcoux Allen 
145 South Jackson Street 
P.O. Box 787 
Jackson, Michigan 49204 
Dear Ms. Bower: 
Nonresponsive 
The domplaint also 
L..,---:--::----,-------:-=--::-:------:----:-:---:th:-e-U:;:~-ii:-'lversit . ~iscriminated 
"------' 
\\.'hich was necessary because ofbi:; disability. 
OCR is responsible for enforcing Section 504 of the Rehahilita~ion Act or 1973, 
29 U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing regulation, 34 C.P.R. Pmt 104. S+ction 504 
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by recipients of Federa' financial 
assistance, including recipients of such assistance from the Department. ~A..s a reoipient of 
Federal financial assistance from the Department, ~cUni,versity is subjeetlo Section 
504. Therefore, OCR had jurisdiction to inves(ik2~elthis.'cornplaint. ; . . ~.' . ; 
., . 
Th: Del'~nmcnt of EduC!llion'$ nl,$,';O. ,S 10 p"':t:olc sluticn! ach't'·crr.cnf and preparat;o·; for global competitiveness by 
foslering eden.llenal exctllence alld ensuring cqtrel acct!s 
·, 
I 
t 
Page 2 -Diane Y. Bower, Esq. .. \ 
Based on the complaint allegations, OCR investig~:ed the issu, .,fwhetL a qualified 
petson w·th a disability was, on the basis of disability. excluded from pahicipation in. 
denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrlmination by the Uruversity, or was 
on th; ?asis. of ~sa?iliU: denied admis~ion or ~bj'eeted t~ discriJtlin~ti04.in admission by 
the Umverslty, m vlOlatLOn of the Scellon 504ltupl~mcntmg regulatlon qt 34 C.F.R. 
§§ I04.4(a) and 104.42(a). DW'i~g th~ in\'es~jgati~p)OC.R,alsoleviewed the University's 
compliance with the provisions ofthe Section'504 regulation, at -34 C. F..R. §§ l04.7(a) 
and I04.7(b), which require the University to designate an employee 10 900rdinate its 
compliance ,'11th Secti.on 504 and to adopt grievance,procedures regardi! Section 504 
complaints. 
During the investigation of this complaint, OCR inter,iewed the CompI: 'nant and 
University personnel. OCR also reviewed documenrs submitted by the Complainant and 
the University, including t1 e Complainant's academic. admissiolJs, and j:dmiSSi'011S 
files, notes eonceming the Complainant and hislNonmponsive lwithdr wal from the 
University. e~mail correspondence concerning the Complainant and his pplication for 
readmission to the University, and the University's grievance procedure. After a careful 
ar.alysis of the information obtained, OCR determined that the Universi 'discriminated 
against the COr:1plainant as alleged, The basis,for that determinution is s·t forth below. 
Alleged Disability Oiscrimination 
Summary orOCR's InvestigatiOl,! 
The Com I.ainant enrolled at the Universi . 
L-______---.land maint<;ine· s ,ertq·::b(~~m.~,thrpugh Nonresponsive .:ne 
Complainant asserted that, at tJ1C tiipe he.en"~!1~~li~~,~P.~~s mO':her not~edhis 
admissions representative that he,had a dis,nbl!ity,:;I!bd,~nqHfred abo.ut a 5q~ plan for him 
that would provide him "yith extra time on tests, exl7.qsions on assLgnments and 
~temati": testi.ng spaces: 1h: Complai?ant.assert~d t~~t .thc-a.fln:is:<ions\representative 
dld not TeTer the Complainant to the Uruvers!t ,'s dIsabIlities senlce 
Complainant said he 'was diagnosed wi.1hLN"...onr~e,...sp_o-,ns:-iv_e~--=----:~:-::r--:--:-:---' 
1:he C01~nplainant explain~d to OCR t!l.at, during the fIrst few mO:lths foUpWi?g ~is 
dIagnosIs, he struggled '7I'1th INonrespoume Ibeoau'i~ he waS adjustIng to 
new medications. During that time period, the Complainant 
Nonresponsive 
He acknow1crl ed that he di not n tify anyone at the University. Mhis diagnosis 
when he Nonresponsive nor did he formally identiry! himself as a 
student with disabilities or request academic adjustfl1ents ~otig\rthe dis~billties service 
office at any tir. e during his enrollment at the Unhterslty. . 
The Complainant told OCR thaI onlNonresponsive Ihis residel~tial direclbr in~cted. 
him to attend a meeting with the vice president of student development, the aSslstant vice 
president of student development, and the residential director, to discuss iis success as a 
student. The Complainant asserted, and the University did not dispute, tHat he was told 
he was not in trouble and the meeting was not os~en~ibly.a discipline meeting. The 
, ' 1:\l7,','t,,; ,:. 
;; ~><:.:~f'~.Y' .~.:~.:i: 
_'..I . ..',; .'\; ,. ~ : '.' 
Page 3 -Diane Y. Bower, Esq. 
Complainant told OCR that the resident director of his donn assured hi twic-e thaI the 
purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Complainant's success at the University. 
However, \-vhen he arrived at (he meeting the vice president told the.COlhplainant that the 
University had received co 'plaints about him from other students and p~esented him 
with a behavior contract that would require hirQ ~o meet with's~'ci:fic in~ividua1s on 
campus if he were having a crisis. He said he became vcry upset at the fuectmg, Within 
the first fen minutes of the meeting, the Camplainant stated that he want~d to withdraw 
from the University based on medical necessity, The University providqd the 
Compl~an \l;j h. th,e necessary form to ~thdr(\w. neUnivers.ity did 10t give ~e 
Complamant any mformatlon about returruno to school or a 1 ill for readmISSIon, At 
the time he withdrew, the Com laln" thad " .1" , 
L--,--.--_-;-;--:-:-----::->for v,:hich he was responsible': The Gomp:tainant id that the vice 
preSident told him that she would "go to bal for hirDl>;,to get that Nonresponsive 
The Complainant applied for re.admis'\ion to the Ulii~'ersfty Nonresponsive 
University's rransfer and readmissions re sentative initially toid the Complainant that 
he needed to pay the Nonresponsive in order to enroll in cla<;ses. L.-'T~h:..::e:.....---..,.--, 
Complainant said be t en spo e W1t the vice president abou having the Nonresponsiv He 
told Iring the conversation with the vice president he explained that he had 
L....,~___-'and described his medical prollress and his Ian for fll ute ue e s at the 
University, The Complainant also requested Nonresponsive as an 
accommodation for his disability, The Complainant said th the vice president told him 
. She told rum that. to be 
readmitted he would have to su mit N .
onresponSive 
other students a 
'Ihe Complainant was in good academic standing at the University when he v.'ithdrew, 
and had not been coa.-ged with any code of co:nduc,t,Yi~la~ions while em lled at tl,e 
U ~ : J I .. C-. ..:... : 
Dlver~lt), '" !. l~ ~ ,,, . 
. . ~ ! .. " 
In response to the allegations, the University informed O~Rthat.. when the Complainant 
first applied to the University in!Nonresponsive ~ he disclosed,informati in ,in ~s 
admissions packet to indicate that he had a history 0 NonresponSive In hIgh school. 
Additionally, at the time of his application, the Complainant's ID0tner no jfied the 
's ndmissions office that the Com lainant had 
was to attempt to have the Complainant sign a behavior contract to dr " , , , ' t1 N onresponSlvebehavior. The behavior contract \':os not dIsclplmary, nor was 1e L.-___---' 
..... 1 
Page 4 -Diane Y. Bower, Esq. 
l...----;:=~~~~L.:::::~~~~~~!.J.!J1o..!_ll\...I..Ik.!.WJ...1_t,l.L'_1'0mplainant's behavior 
1\C)' asserted tbt the 
purpose e In the behavior contract vas to encourage the Complainan~ in mommts of 
crisis. to see the assistant vice president, the dorm dhector, or the vice ptesident. 
The behavior contract provided that the Complainant would do the fOIl~:Ving: (1) enter 
into or maintain a relationship with a .counselor; (2) request a letter from the therapist sent 
directly to the vke president, confimdng that he was a client and rcgul y under care; 
(3) sign a Releas~ ofInformi'llion fon1l a110,\'ing Director ofthe! rolton ealth Center to 
discuss his case with a pro'vider mentioned above; (4) ·abide by all recorrimendutions of a 
counselor including taking prescrioed medication' and behavioral modifitatiol'.sj (5) keep 
his com osure duriner class eriods 
Nonresponsin (6) ~ d' . ,: '-[VOl SOCl 
situations that may contribute to his stress and eventual crisis (l:(~ was inStructed that if he 
felt a crisis was imminent then he was to contact his resident director, th¢ vice president, 
the assistant vice presiden , the University chaplain. or the director of thd Holton Health 
Center); 1lnd (7) because of the complexity of the issues that he seemed 16 gm Ie with 
on a uent basis, the r asked that, at the times he \vas ex criendn a cbis 
~ onresponSlve 
! 
The vice president said she believed the conditions in the behavior contr!ct were 
necessary because bv 
L-__--,-,--~Thevice president dra ed the behaVior contract thout ha'ving any 
su stantial interaction 'A'ith the Complainant, 0t1l~I'thf.In having set>n him sc\'eral times on 
campus, and possibly baving briefly spoken with him during his enrollmrnt at the 
University. 
The Un.iversity acknowledged that within ten minutes of meeting on INonresponsive lthe 
Complainant ex ressed a desire to withdraw from the University based or medical 
necessitv. The . onresponsive said he kft the meeting bdefiy to pbtain a 
withdra~al form an then provided the Cornplai~.aJj·y.~th·tfe form he needed to complete 
his withdrawal. The vice president revj.ewed {lie fori;} WIth him. and ask*d him if he had, 
or would like to, discuss the decision with hjs famIly. No one at the meeting could recall 
discussing with the Complainant the consequences Qf his decisio:J to witHdraw from the 
University, or the requirements for his readmission', The meeting lasted ~etween five and 
ten minutes. I 
The University does not distInguish between types ofwithdra'....-als, nor ~its 
readmission requirements based on whether the student withdrew for me1ica! reasons or 
othenvise. The University did not place any restrictions on the Complainant's return to 
the University. 
Page 5 .. -Diane Y. Bower, Esq. , I ,':,'" ". \' i.~ .'jr~!~:\::~~'; 
Accordi.ng to 1hc""N'-onr-e-sp-o-ns"'-iv-e----,·after tl~~' C6~piainant withdreL from the 
University on Nonresponsive lainapt's mother infortaed the 
on a 504 plan in high school. : 
The Com lainant submitted his a plicationJo( readmission to tr,e univJsitv 
L-_:----:--' The University ~serl 0 th"t its readmission poli~ provides that, if 
a student has aticnded the University's main campus in the past and wisHes to re-tum the 
student will be revie,,"'ed for readmission using the following prclcess: J 
I. Complete the Application for Readmission. 11lls can be completed 
online at ..,,'\vw.arbor.edulaoplvonline or the s udent n contact his or 
her Admission Representative for a paper applicationJ An Admission 
Representative can also complete the Application for ~eadmission 
over the phone with the student. I , 
I 
2. Submit official transcripts from...~11 colleges attended ~ince leaving the 
University. 
3. Submit a compl~ted Rel~ase o';::JI~f~r;~~ti~n form. (~iS is only 
requir~d iftbe l<!st colleg~. a1tetild~~,si,nce lea "ng th~ fniv('~itY was a 
four-~'ear college and the stude'nt.lh:ed on campus.) I 
I 
4. Submlt a completed Student Agr~ement form signed Hy the student. 
i 
5. Approval must be granted from aU listed departments ~n order for the 
student to re.turn to SAU. If any departments inform the Office of 
Admissions of EI rcason the stlldcnt cannot be rcadmit1('d, the college 
will notify t.~e student. It is the student's responsibilitf to contact 
those dt'partments and take care of any items ~;randinglin the way of 
lheir readmission: . '.'" i. I 
Registrar \ 
Business Office 
Financial Aid 
Student Development andJ_eamin~ 
Perkins Loan Office 
6. Once the student is approved h~'a\J departme:lts listedlabove, the 
student will be accepted fO!1'e,~dw.is,si<?n,,\o tl~e. Univcri.ify a?d is 
eligible to move forward ,:,,~th ~h.(f!h~Cial aId and re~lstratlOn 
, . I I. p'.> processes. . 
The University's written readmission policy does not include a requirem4nt that an . 
applic.ant submit documentation of medical treatment, letters from therapists, or SectlOn 
504 plans. Nei1her the University's transfer and admissions representatiVie nor the 
" .." 
, 
Page 6 -Diane Y. Bower, Esq. J' 
University's counsel knew whether this readmissions policy was publis ed anywhere in 
the University's materials. OCR c·ould nol loea1e a copy ofthls policy oh the 
Unive-rsity's website. The University bas a'one-paragraph ''Rcrdmit Pol~cy" in its 
2010-2011 Student Handbook that provides: j 
The Univc-rsity reserves the right to deny con1inllcd enrDllment 0 readmittance 
to any stud"nt whose personal history indicates that his or her 
presence at the University would endanger the health, safety or \~clfare of 
the:melvcs or offlle members of the SAU community. ' 
OCR notes that this policy was not included in the University's Nonresponsive 
Student Handbook, which was effective during the time the Corr plainan 
\A;;thdrcw from the University and applied for.read~~~.sjon:· 
The director of the business office at the Universliy Told OCR that the Umiversity 
will not readmit students until their account balances arc paid in full, andl will not 
waive amounts owed unless they result from University error, 1 
Nonresponsive 
A INonresponsh'e 
Nonresponsive 
he representa ive told OCR that at that.time she was not av.are of an:; other 
requiremen s that tbe Complainant pad to satisfy fOr)r~d~ission. I 
told him it may be too lateLN_onr_es~p:...o_ns_iv_e____----.~-1.~~=..J'4 
Complainant notified the vice pres.ide 
... 
I I I 
Page 7 -Diane Y. Bower, Esq. I " , ; I 
~-----,------, ~~~rullllf:nlJ~~l.e.d.....b·Lll:~~'~~'" ai~.~o the admiSSioL office thaI the 
, to be read'nitted t the Uniy.;rsit '. 
Nonresponsive 
L-__-.J (emphasis added) 
I 
INonresponsive ,Itold OCR that, after the e-mail exchalll!e 
with the. vice president, i~ was her understanding that the University requlred the ~ 
Complamant to INonresponslve Iill order to be readmitted. Sh'~ said sh1conveyed that 
requirement to the Complainant by hone on seyeral occasions 3 .. d in the 
phone log the University provided. Nonresponsh'e told 
OCR that she had never before been told to Nonresponsive I' readmission applicants. 
The vice presidenL NonresponsiYe .all continued tJlat the 
CO)T1 lainant's a) lication for readmission was never considered becaus~ he did not 
Nonresponsive I 
The vice president explained to OCR that she did no~!requi~e the Complalnant to 
necessarily INonresponsi\'e Ibut she did require. S!:lIDe·ey~dence or other documentation 
that the Complainant had a disability, and tha't his p7o~le~'~~ere being treated, before 
she made a decision about his readmission. Specifically: the vice pre!'idepl wanted 
documentation and information from the Com lainam that dem0nstrated that he would be 
able handle a full-time course load, Nonresponsive and b! successful at the 
University ifhc were readmit ed. She said she thought Nonr.sponsive mig~l also provide 
information about what academic adjustments the Complainant might ne~d also. The 
vice president told OCR that she told tbe Admissions Office that 'the Complainant needed 
to providel~.onresponsi Ibecause she did not want to reveal that he had a ps)~chiatJic 
disability. 
The vice president acknowledged that the University had only r~qui[ed fltudents to, 
provide documentation regarding their medical hi¥tory'in two in,':ances that she could 
think of, each time WhCll the stucents posed a threat to themselws or others. She said she 
has never reques:ed such documentation from st:.ldcr.ts with non-psychiatric impairments 
or disabilities who had withdrawn from the University for medic:; I reasons. She 
explained that she has req1!csted documentation from student,,' therapists '~:ujng tha1 the 
stl1denis were ready to return and had been seeking treatoent dur~ng thej~ absence from 
Lhe University when it was deemed that the students were a threat to themselves or others, 
Howe\'er, the Universi1y provided OCR 'v1iith dOC).lInentation of only one ~thcr instance in 
which the University required ~e1ical records ~r j,~tbFna!t~~ as a conclitipn for u. 
student's reenrollment. In thatlnstance, the UOlv~rS-l-lY reQUlted a student,to provlde 
docwnentation of a psychiatric evaluation a~d a ret:Ori16e~datioll from the provider that 
the student was able to return to the Uniyersity before the srndcnt could reenroll. 
Page 8 -Diane Y. Bower, Esq. 
'. ::', { .., .. 
! .~ ... 
. '..... 
i I 
I 
I 
The Univc,sity never detcnl1ined that the Complainant was a thr~[lt to otl1ers. The vicc 
president told OCR that the Com Jaincmt had de onstrated he was a lhr~at to himself 
because he was ~onresponsive two days after the CoIhplainant 
s~bmitted .~s app c~tion 10r readmission) the vice president and INonrespo~sive 
discussed "not alloWIng" the Complainant's admissbn in an e-ma'--.i1'e-x-'c'hh',n-g-e-;"b-e-ca-u-s-e.---' 
the Nonresponsive noted. the C . n 
stated that the Univer ity could assert 
the. osi~on that the CoL.m-p'-a-'-in-a-n7"t-w-a-s-a-;d--an-g-e-r-to~himselr and di3ruptive1to others. The 
NonresponsIve raised the University's coneem that the CQmplairh could possibly 
hurt someone else for the first time in an affidavit dated \Nonre!J>onsive ~uhmitted to 
OCR as part of its investigation. I 
The University has .: '. ._~; ..,:!'::-..... j. ' .' J 
Nonresponsive .,.'.; ,l i'~ . Aoplicable Legal Standards 
I 
The regulation implementing Section 504, at 34 C.F.R. § 104.3G){ l), dcfirles an individual 
with a disability as any person who has a physical or mcntal impairment that substantially 
limits one or more major life activities, has a record ofsucb impairment, br is regarded as 
having such an imp:tinnent. Section 504~ at 34 C.F.R. § J04. 30)(2)(i\'), further provides 
that a p~on is regarded as having an impainnem when the person: has ~physjcal or 
mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities bht \,.ho is tn.!Jted 
by a recipicn1 as constituting sueh a limitation; has a physical or mental 4npairment that 
substantially limits major life activities only as a,n~st\lt of the atti tudes onothers toward 
such impaimlcnr; or has none of the impainnent~ 9~nneo,by the.l'egulaticfn, but is treated 
by arecipiem as having such an impairment. As ofJanuafy 1, 2009, the date the 
Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of2008 took effect, a perspn is regarded as 
having a disability if he or she has been subjected to an actklO p;,ohibited i\mder Section 
504 because of lln actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the 
impainnent limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. Accordingly, OCR's 
analysis focuses on whether a recipient of FederaHinancial assi51ance perceives that an 
individual has a physical or a mental imp~rip~L \\itl,ioui consid~riIlg wi ether the 
rcdpicnt perceives "that individual to be limited inca rn.ujor lifc 8cijvity. 
With regard to postsecondary students, a "qualified" ilidividual "'16 a disa1:lility is one who 
meets the institu!ion' s academic nnd technical stand<1rds for admission or p~rticipatjon in the 
academic program. See 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(1)(3). . 
The regulation implemcnting Section 504, at 34 C.F .R. § 104.4(a), also prJvides that no 
qualified persoll with a disability shall, on the basi~ of a dis~bility, be :xcl~d~ ~om 
participalion in, be denied the benefits of, or oilienVlse be subjected to dlSCAmtnatlOn Ul~der 
any recipient's program or activity. The regulation implementing Section 5D4, at 34 C.P,R. 
Page 9 -Diane Y. Bowcr. Esq. 
§ ) 04.42(a), funher provides that a qualified person wiih a disabili'.y may qat, on the basis of 
disability, be denied admission or be subjected to discrimination in. admission by a 
postsecondary inSl i u:idn that is a recipient of Feded financia1assistance. 1 
1 
To de-tennine whether an individual has been subjected to disab1ity-basd,d discrimination 
in admission, OCR generally considers whether the individual 15 a qualifled person with a 
disability, whe1her the individual was subjected to an adverse admission Ia~tion. and 
whether the adverse action was based on the individual's disability. OCR examines the 
recipient's standards for readmission and how they w~re applied t~ the cbmplainant. 
Absent overtly discrirn.inntory poliCies, OCR consi(l'ers whether there ar~other 
circumstances that may raise an inference of diScri\nli1ation. OCR may ~xnmine whether 
the instiMion failt~ to follow established procedures'or irrac1ice~, whelher the institution 
treated the applicant with a disability differently than similarly-situated non-disabled 
applicnn s, or whether there is other evidence of discrimination. If differbnt treatment 
can be infclTcd from any such circumstances, OCR considers whether the institution has 
provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for it<; action. If such a reason is 
presented, OCR considers whether tbe reason is merely a pretext for discrimination. 
Under Section 504, the "direct threat" standard applies to situations wherc a university 
proposes to take adverse action agamst a student ,yhose disability poses ~ significant risk 
to the health or safety of othcrs. A significant risk constitutes a high prolbabililY of 
substantial harm and not just a slightly increased1 spe~lllatiye. or remote risk. In 
. ,.. " t detennining whether a student poses a direct threat, tl\e unlversit)' must m:1ke an 
individualized assessment, based on a reasonable judgment that relics on!current medical 
knowled!!e or on the best available objective evidence, to ascer\3in: the nature, duration, 
and seve;ity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury tl.iJl actucllly occur; and 
whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or proc('..duTCS wi~1 sufficiently 
mitigate the risk. The student must notbe subject to adverse action on the basis of 
unfounded fear, prejudice and stereotypes. ',.. ',t' '.' : 
( . ~'I .:l :;:)!;..I \i ,.'~ ;
. Under OCR policy, nothing in Section 504 pr~ve;n~,~ducil1i0na1 institutiOns from 
addressing the dangers posed by an individ.ua) wno'(gpreF-~nts a "direct tHreat" to the 
health and safety of others, even if such an iildf,:iqual is a person with a disability, as that 
individual may no longer be qualified for a particular educational program or activity 
under 34 C.r-.R. § 104.3(k)(3). Following a proper detennintltiGrt that a $tudent poses a 
direct threa~ an educational institution may require as a precondi lion to ar student's return 
that the student provide docwncntation that the student has taken steps t~reduce the 
previous threat (e.g., follo\lv'ed a treatment plan, submitted periodic reports, granted 
permission for the institution {O talk to the treating professional). Ho"veYfr, educational 
institutions cannot require that a student's disability-related behavior no ~onger occur, 
unless that behavior creates a direct threat that cannot be elimina;'cd through reasonable 
modifications. 
! . 
-,l'., ~.. ,...I ..,
-'. r--. ~" . '-Il"
,;. tl: :lo.'t.' 1,.,_;.; . . I I ':'; ~. ~:~. ";;:, Page lO -Dj'ane Y. Bower. Esq. 
Analvsis and Conclusion 
In the instant ease, the evidence established that although the Complainkt never 
identified himsclfas a student with a disability with the Vnjversity's disability services 
office, the University perceived the Complainant to qe an individual witl~ a mental 
impairment. In addition to the notice the University 're~lyed from the Cpmplainant's 
mother that he sutTered from Nonresponsive the Com lninant m~de the 
Universi r OW:1r\! of his syehiatric histo in his Nonresponsive astki on what the 
University descrihed :IS Nonrtsponsive tHe University 
created a behavior contract at indicmed its belief that the Complainant had a mental 
impainnenL Specifically, the University attempted to require th{' Complainant to seek 
counseling from a therapist and to agree to take aJl prescribed mcdicatiorys. The 
University ~!~o ~ttempted to T:quire the C.o~piajnant.to· pro:ride:-ccess t~ his therapist so 
that the UmvefSlty could stay mformed of hIS care, 1he Umvemty subsequently imposed 
the same conditions that were in the Nonresponsive behavior contract on the 
Complainant's read ission in Nonresponsive d specifically requeEted Nonresponsiv The vice 
president maintained that the Complainant needed to provide h~I with Nonresponsiv or at 
least the same information about his medical c-andiTiol1 and treatment that she previousl 
sou ht in the behavior contract so that she COUld.determine whether he eQuid 
d attend classes u me. Additionally, when the Comp amant 
~~~~~~~~.....>..U:\<..L_-'----__-_,--JUescribed'the Complainant as a 
OCR has determined ,that the 
~~~~~~--------~----~~ riiversity's behavior contract and its conditions for the Complainant's return to the 
Uniycr.ity dem('n~truted that the University per£,ci;ye<thim t<;> be an individual with!l 
disability. pursuant to 34 C.F,R. § b04.3G)P)Q.ii),\~,· {.:, .~ .i, 
I '. " . ~.,.. ~ :. \ I 
Moreover, the Complainant established that he w~igHali~'ed: He was accepted into the 
program and had successfully com;Jleted onc't,crnfas'a full-time ,-itudent.:There is no 
dispute that the Complainant voluntarily withdrew trom the University. the University 
acknowledged [hat the Complainant did not have any disciplinary or ac;:dcmic issues 
while he was emolled as a student. TIle Unive.rsity also acknowledged that it had no 
intention of clismissinCI the Com lainant or disciplining him whe:.1 it presented him with a 
behavior contract in Nonresponsive Rather, the University said it draftedihis behavior 
contract to help him be sliccessful. Based on OCR's review ofthe cvid£nte proy;ded, 
OCR has determi.ned that the Complainant was a qualified individll4l1"'lith ~ disability 
because he met the Universitis standards for admission and continued participation in the 
program, and his withdrawal was a voluntary \i,~thdra'\\o,l[ unrelatcn to any fpetors that would 
have disqualified him, such as academic or discip!iryaI)" issues. 
OCR next detcmuned whether the LT iversity impo-;ed a requirenent on the Complainant 
for bis readmission that it did not uhpose on students \vho were not coru,itiered \0 have a 
disability because he has or was perc~ived to be an individual wi-J! a disability. There is 
no dispute thm the University requjred the Complainant to provide doc~entation of his 
medical condition and confinnatiQn that he was getting treatment which tould include 
INonrtsponsive Ibefore l~C Universit! would c(j~sid~r' his,ap~1jcatinl1 for recnrollment. . 
Although the CompJamant also had INo~espon"";e. .: ,'.. ~". Il'Ie Ylce 
.. ~', " l I '. 
'\.)·j'l '1I: ' 
" .: 
Page J I -Diane Y. Bower. Esq. 
president and \Nonresponsive Istated that they would not consider'the 
Complainant's application until he submitted.\~.onresponsi lor medical docukncnlation 
regarding his mental health. The Complainant'Was denied readmission. therefore. 
because he did not provide the University with:.his\~.~:r<spon lor either documentati~n 
regarding the status of his mental health. Th.e University's readmission ~Iicy docs not 
require an applicant to provide I~.onresponsi lor other medical docur1entatior regarding the 
status of a disabili ty. or status of any health condition. The vice president acknowledged 
that, in her history in her position, she had only required two sUlcen+s to provide medical 
documentation regarding: their condilion and treatment prior to readmissio11, when it was 
deemed that those students were a t.hreat to themselves or others. According to the 
docwnents provided by the University, the University required only one c!lther student to 
provide medical documentation, specifically ev.idence,ofthat student's psychimric 
.condition, before the student could.continu.~ enrollment at the University~ This evidence 
is sufficient to show d1at the University Unpo~ed an additional requirement for 
reenrollmcnt on the Complainant that it does not requi~e of recnrollment applicants who 
are not individuals with disabilities, abd are not perceived to be. 
The Unive:-sity represented that it conditioned the Complainant"s reen:oHment on his 
ahility to demonstrate tbat he could handle a fun-time course 10a(~ILN_ollI_e_sp_on_si",ve--,;,..--__...J 
and be successful at the University. The Complainant had not given callS!e for the 
University to require a showing that he eould be successful. His vvithdrawal was 
voluntary, he had peen in good standing academicaJly, and the Universit~ had never 
disciplined him. OCR found, therefore, that this was not.a legitioale, nohdiscriminatory 
basis for the additional requirement the University imposed on the Complainant. 
The University implied, in its affidavit submitted by tlw INonresponsive Ithat 
when the Complainant \..~thdrew, the University consiaered the s'uden! to possibly pose a 
directtbreat. The I .. 7I Nonresponsive 
OCR found that the University had taken no me.asures to detennbe whether the 
Complainant represented a direct threa~ to ot~~r&\,:~p~~<;jf.\~~ly, there is no evidence that 
th~ University made ~n indjvidu?:li~d ass~s~~ri~}g:.d,:o,~. *r<~a~~nable~udgment that 
relied on CUJTcnt medlcal k.nowledge or ~u ~ebes~,u~ai.T~Wc obJe~t:ve evrdollce, to . 
ascertain: the natUre, duration, and seventy of the ns~; theproba'rnhty that the potcntlal 
injury would actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of po~cjes, practices, 
or procedur~s would sufftcicntly mitigate the risk. Testimony ftom UiUversity ersonnel 
illdica1ed that they believed the Co lainant was 
In an e-ma\ exc ange contemporar eous wit t cL-________________~ 
Complainant's ap )jcation for readmissio~ University personnel described the 
Complainant as Nonresponsiv and not as a threat to others. The vice preside~t. who as vice 
president of Student Development would make a detennination 33 to thatioffice's 
approval of his application for readmission, bad not had any substantial interactions with 
the Complainant prior to the\Nonresponsive Imeeting when the'Complainant v-,ithdrew. 
Page 12 -Diane Y. Bower, Esq. 
.:.~. ;:; ~1.~~.~::,;;~ i'.: :~.: . 
There is no evidence that the Unh'crsity believed he,pos~d a sigJificnnt ri!\k or high 
probability ofb..:mn to anyone. or made such a de{erti,ination. 
Thus, in this instance, OCR finds that the evidence is sufficient -;;0 supuorit a finding that 
the University discriminated against the Complainant on the basis of disalbiJit\, in -
violation of 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(a) and 34 C.F.R. §104.42(a) when it condition;d his ability 
to.remain enrolled at the University upon.signing the behavior ccmrac:t, and th.en refused 
to consider his readmission until he provided medical documentation to dstabUsh his 
condition and treatment. Although the matter c.oncerning the behavior contract was 
untin:ely ~~~use tbe,complaintwas filed more than 180 days afi:!rtheINonresponsi\'e 
mee ng, 1t IS mstmctlve to OCRls conclusions 011 the allegation regarding the 
Complainant's application for readmission. 
, 
I discriminated a 'amst hlm by refusing 
~ ~~~ 
necessary because of'his disabilit . However "the University never considered the 
Complalnant's request for Nonresponsive because he was ntver readmitted to the 
Uniycrsiy. Theretbre, OCR did no additional investigation oftlris allegation. 
Section 504 Grievance PI'occdurcs .: '. :-~.'< ~ I' 
.. !')' ';: '..'! ,: 
Summ~·I.I·v oflnvestitmtion . , "" :d 11~~i, j:;' i 
Although the Complainant did not raise an j'ssue ~eg~;di~g the l"niversiJ,s Section 504 
grievance procedures, OCR learned during the course of its investi ation 'that the 
University did not haye Section 504 grievance procedures, On Nonresponsive the 
Complainant qUC'stioned the trnnsfcr and readmissions represenbtivc about why he \.....as 
required to submitlNonresponsive given that the same requirement W8.S not (nlposed on all 
other applicants for readmission. The Complainant told the transfer and readmissions 
representative that he believed the University's jmposition o~Nonresponsi\'e . Ion 
him was discriminatory because he had a disa~i)ity. The transfer and readmissions 
representative did not refer the Complainant to the University's S'ection 504 Coordinator 
or its grievance procedure for disability discrimination complai:;ts. Nor ciid the transfer 
and readmissions representative report her conVersation with the Complainant about his 
claim of disabil1ty discrimination to the vice president I 
OCR reviewed the University's ~kc(ion 504 grievance procedure which ~pears to be 
published only in a faculty and st..'lffhandbook. The University's Section'S04 
Coordinator did not know where students or visitors could find tr.e University's Section 
504 grievance procedure. OCR notes that the University's 2010-2.011 Sh;ldcnt Handbook 
includes a "Student Complaints" p!ocedur~ thqt,r,.eC!.ui~es students to seek info:-mation 
about resolution of complaints with appropriate UniVersity officials, and if necessary 
submit complaints to the a TO riate Univer~ity vicc:presiti'ent l11[s complaint procedure 
was not included in the Nonresponsiv Student Handbook th~t was j'n effect while the 
Complainant was enrolled a1 the University or during the period of time he applied for 
readmission.. 
Page 13 -Diane Y. Bower. Esq. 
TIle Section 504 coordinator told OCR that she was not involved in disahility 
discrimi ation complaints or grievances. She explained that an\' !ffiev8necs ·related to 
disability discrimination were referr(.';d to the University's assistnt vice president for 
human resources. OCR found that the UniversilY' s Section 504 grievance procedure 
requires the accused individual to-provide the \v!itteti response 10 the grievance to both 
the grievant and the assistant vice president for Iruman res-ources. The procedure 
provides timelines for completion of each phase of the:iIivestigatlon. The procedure also 
provides for notice of the disposition ofthe compJahi.t'to the parties by the assistant vice 
president for human resources. The procedure alsb provides that a grievant may apreal 
the decision to an appeals committee and subsequently to the prc ;ident. 111e procedure 
does not include a process for adequate, reliable, and impartialiflvcstigatlon of 
complaints, including the opportunity to present witnec;ses and othcr evidence. Rather, 
the assistant vice president for human resources only inyestigates grievru,ces "as 
appropriate." The procedure also does not provide contact information, such as a phone 
ilumbcr, name or titie, or address, for the assistan vice president ':>"f humdtl resources. 
I 
Amilicable Re2UlatoD' Standar~ 
The Section 504 regulation, at 34 C.F.R. § 104.7(b), states, in r:"rt, that a recipient shall 
adopt grie\"ance procedures that incorporate appropriate due pro'"!ss standards and that 
provide for the prompt and equitable resolution ofcompJaints alleging any action 
prohibited by Section 504. \Vhen evaluating a recipient's grlevaJlce procedures under 
Section 504, OCR considers a number offactors in evaluating whether a recipient's 
grievance procedures meet regulator)' requirements, including: whether the procedures 
provide for notice of the procedures, including ,ybcr~,~omplain1S may be filed; 
application of the procedure to ~o~plai~~s ~1;l~g~g,ffi~c11}}!Ratio: ,carrie~ Ol~t by. . 
e ployees, oth students, or ~partIes; ad~qu,a~'lSfihffll~~ aIle Impartial tnvestlgahon 
of complaints, including he opportunity to presen,t~'trie!l$.es and other evidence; 
designated and rea<;onably prompt timefram.es ~or ih~.:ma}or stages ofthe-complaint 
process~ notice to the pllrtics of the outcome ofthe complaint; and an assurance that the 
school will take steps to prevent !:"ccurrence of an)' harassment all i to correct 
discriminatory effc ts on the complainant and others, if appropriate. 
Ana\v.;;.is ~md Conclusion 
OCR found tha. the University has adopted a Section 504 grievance procedure which is 
published in the University's faculty and staffhandbook. The grievance procedure 
indicates which office complaints are to be filed with (the Assistant Vice 'President of 
Human Resources), provides prompt timeframes for all stages of the inve~tigation of all 
complaints, and provides that complainants will be piqvided wi til notice of tite outcome 
of the inyestigation. further, complainants have the right to an 'Tpeal. The appeal 
process provides complainants an opportunity to identify relevant infonnation and 
establishes clear and reasooable 1imeframes for processing the ap::>cal. Finally, the appeal 
procedure provides that the complainant wm be provided notice of the appeal decision in 
writing. 
Page 14 -Diane Y. Bo vcr, Esq. 
.,, , " 
,.... ::~ I. . . ,; ~" 
..' .... 
~~ .' t ~ ~; 
However, the University's Section 504 Coordinator didnot know how students or visitors 
are notified of the grievance procedure, nor could OCR locate a copy ofthe grievance 
procedure in the Student Handbook. Additionally, the Universi:y's Section 504 
grievance procedure'doe.s not incorporate appropriate due process standards. 
Specifically, the grievance procedure does not. indicate how com laints should be filed, 
does not provide complainants an opportunity to identify witnesses and other relevant 
information during the investigation. does not provide complainc nts with v,'ritten notice 
of the outcome of he investigation,. does not explain that complaints to b,e filed pursuant 
tothe procedure,include allegations of disability qis~~ination, includin~ disability 
harassmf!nt, camed out by cmployec,~, other studeill$,,or third parties, do~s not include 
the address, and te-Iephone number of the University employee with ~ho~n complaints 
should be filed and provide for an alternate person if the person with whom the co:nplaint 
is filed is ailcged to have been rnvohTed in the discriminationlhar:!5sment, and does not 
include an assurance thAt, in cases ofdisability harnssmenLr the T.! niversit)' wi II take steps 
to pre\'ent recurrence of any harassment and to correct discriminatory effects on the 
complainant and otllers, ifappropriate. The Uniycrsity's Section 504 Coordinator also 
plays no role in addressir~g complainants of disabi!i~.discrimi alion. Therefore, OCR 
found that the Univcrsity's Section'504 g:-ievancc.procedures do not meet all ofthe 
requirements oftbe Section 504 regulation, at 34 C:F:R. § l04.7(b). 
To resolve tIlis ma,ter, the University submitted. the enclosed Resolution Agreement, 
si·ncdDecemberlO 2010. Pursuantt tleA ,ecmenLtheUni"ersi will: 
Nonresponsive 
(2) reimburse 
'-:t-;-he-;:;C:-o-m-p7"'la-;-il-1a-n~t"fo-r--;t""71i -s-co-s""7t-o"'f7:tu"""it:>io-n-:-7jo-r:-c-o":":"ur=-=s-=-e:-c-:re:-:JT;lls~r::-;-t"'-'lr::-no"t-Xtr=a::::n-=1sfer from the 
University EO the post-secondary institution he enrolled in immediately after!::-Ionresponsive I 
provided that the Complainaot submits documentation to the UnrversilY of such costs; 
(3) revise its Section 504 gricvance procedure; and (4) publish the revised Section 504 
grievance procedure in 1110 Student Handbook and on the Uruver~ity's website. 
The Unjversity should revise its Section 504 gri~v~'ntJ~'procedure as described below and 
provide adequate notice of tl e procedures. The revised procedur.~s v.111 include the 
following: (I) clarification that the procedure applies to student~ lIld cmployees, 
(2) clarification about how complaints can be filed (e.g. in ....11tin:;), (3) clarification that 
complaints to be filed pUT:lUan1 to the procedure include allegatio!l.s of di~2bllity 
discriminaiion. including disability haras~ment, carried out by clr,ployees, other students, 
or third parties, (4) notice of t..f-Jc aqdres$ and ~eJ~hon~c,n~mber of the Universiry , 
employee with whom complaints snrJuld be filed ~~qg~or1~. for ~alte~ate person If 
the person with whom tbe complaint is filed i~ aIlegecl'to naVe be~n invol;ved 111 the 
discrirninafioniharassment, (5) provision ofadequate, reli~bJe, 01:1 imPaI1ial investigation 
ofcomplaints, including the opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence, 
(6) inclusion of the University Section 504 Coordinator in 1he Unjversity1~ inv:-stig~tion 
of grievances, (7) assurance that., in cases of disability harassrnen!, the UmversLty WlII 
Page l5 -Diane Y. Bo'wer. Esq. 
:. f I~'-:'j,,;. . take steps 10 prevent rec\l!Tcnce.dr any har~~riV~Il! fiPdto-,yo!Teu discriminatory efrects 
on the complainant and others, if~PTlropriiite1 ~9-(;g) o9ticethu', retaliation agai nst 
individuals \\ ho file disability ruscnmination complaiIilts or participate in the grievance 
process is prohibited. 
This GOllcludes our in"estigation of this matter. We wiII contint:e to monitor the 
University's iniplementation of the agreement. Ifthe University does D(}t implement the 
acti-ons outlined in the ugreemcnt. OCR v"ill un.rnediately reSlU11e our eff{)tts to secure the 
University's compliance \vith applicable Federal laws. Also, please be aware that a 
complainant may file a private suit in Federal court \"'hether or not OCR'finds a violation. 
This letter is a let cr of findings issued by OCR to address an individual OCR case. 
Letters of findings contain fact·speciftc investigative findiugs acd dispositions of 
individual ctlses. Letters offindings arc not fom).al ~tatcmcnts of OCR policy and they 
should not be relied upon, cited, or c,onstrued as such. OCR's r~nnal policy statements 
are appro 'ed by a duly authorized OCR official and made available to the public, 
We a preciate the courtesy shown by and your staff during the investigation of this 
complaint. We look forward to receiving your first monitoring report, which is due on 
January 21,2011. If yOIl have any questiops or concerns about tbe resolution of this 
complaint, please contact Mr. D?Bald S. Yata?~/Tfi~~n\~~~9.er, at (216) 522-7634. 
tIll,.. ;'_J'''~l~' i~!t·· \ .;;1i\. 
~~~ 
Catherine D. Criswell ~ Director 
Enclosure 
" \ 
; ,,~.~ <\:;,., 
Resolution Agreement 
Spring Arbor Univet:Sity 
OCR Docket No. 15-10-1098 
I 
Spring Arbor University (the University) submit's the following agreemcnHo the U.S. 
Department ofEd0 c:.ati'On, Office for Civil'Rights (ocr). ~o enSUl'C the University's 
compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sec 'on 504),29 U.S.C. § 
794, and its impleme:ltiug regulation at 34 C.F.;R.:?art·l04. Accordingly, the University 
agrees to take the following actions to resolve the abo-v..e-referen·ced complaint: 
. ", 
L L'1dividuai Remedies 
A. By Janua.ry 7 2011 the UnIversity will) 
Nonresponsi\'e 
8. By January 7, 2011, the University will notify the Student tHat it has taken 
the actions set forth in item l.A. 
REPORTING REQUJREMENT: 8y Jannary2t 2011, the University will provide 
OCR with documentation to verify that ithas irnplemented item LA'and E, 
ioc\udin documentation showin that the Uuivcrsi 
Nonresponsive 
C. By J~tU~7,2011: the'University wiQ1~ffer, in vrriting. to reimburse the 
Studen.t for ?is c,ost 9ftuition ,f9t,FO;:/~f ~~?,its that did not .~sfer f~orn 
the Umverslt to the post-secondary tn·!\~i'tunbn he (: 11'olled m unme~hately 
REPORTING REQUIREMENT: By January 21,2011, the Un.iversity will provide 
OCR with documentation to verify that it has notified the ~)'lldent as required in 
item IC, including a copy ofthe written offer. 
D. Within two weeks of the Student's submission ofdC'cumentation to 
establish the specific dollar amount of such costs, b11t by ITO later than May 
13, 20l1, the Univer,;ity will reimburse the Student for the e~penses 
described in item I.e. 
REPORTING REQUIRElViENT: By May 27, 20r 1, the University will provide 
OCR with documentation to \'crify that it h!lS re.im~~'rsed to'! Studel1~ by certified 
check for his ccsts, ifany. as required irii:em'lD. " -
Page 2 -Resolution Agreement-Spring Arbor University -OC~ Docket #15-10-2098 
n. Revisions to Section 504 Grie...."nce Procedures A. By January 14,2011, the University witl revise its grievance procedures to 
ensure that they provide, at a min imum : ! 1. notice to students and employees ofthe procedure, including \"('here 
complaints may be filed and how they maybe filed (in writing, e.g.); 2. clarification that complaints of disability discrimination, includi ng 
disability baras~ent7 canied ,ou,t by employee:;, other students, or third 
partles may be filed under the Uriiversity's Section 504 grievance procedure; . 
3. notice of the address and telephone number of~he University employee 
with whom c.omplaints should be filed and no:ice ofan"alternate person 
ifthe person with whom the complaint is filed is alleged to have been 
involved in the discrimination/barassment; 4. adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation elf complaints, including 
the oppommtty to prescnt witnesses and other evidence; 5. involvement oftie University's Section 504 Coordinator in the 
University's investigation of ~evances, to ens-uI'C the l1niversity's 
adherence to the requircmen~ gf S'y~tion 504 n.:1d its implementing regulation; .' '. 
6. assurance ili;~ 'in 'c~esOtdiSabi-lityhlrassmeri'~ the Uni,'erni1y will 
take steps to prevent recurrence of any har8s:;nent and to correct 
discriminetory effects on the compla1nant andotilCrs. if'appropriarc: 
and ... '.'- '. 
7. notice that retaiJatron a~~i~tlfv!duaj.s·who D.te disability 
discrimination complamts 'or pdrticrpate 'in'the firievance process is 
prohibited. RFPORTlNG REQUTREMENT: By January 28. 201 t, tile University will provide 
OCR \\;th a draft of its revised Sec,tion 504 grievance procedure, and within 
calendar 30 days after roceiving writ1rn notification from OCR that the grievance 
procedure, as revised in accordance with Item ILA.I-7 above, is consistent with the 
.reqlliremeots of Section 504, the University wili submit documentation to OCR to 
verlfy that it bas implemented Item It.A.l-7, including adoption ofthe gri~vance 
procedure_ 
, "" 
, ' 
'. ~. ~ ... ' .... . 
Pa{!c 3 -Resolution Agreement -Spring Arbor Uuiversfty -OCR Docket #15-1 0-2098 
A. Within c.alendar 60 days after adopting the revised grievance procedure, the 
University win publish its revised grievance procc·:iure in itS Srudent 
Handbook. Employee Handbook, B11d on the Uni'Vc 'Sity website. 
B. Within c.'tlendar 90 days after adopting the: revised grievance procedure, the 
University will effect'ivC!ly publish a notice to all sl11denl~·a:nd employees 
that the University's procedures forrcpomng disabiliry discrimination have 
b~en revised and where copies ma), be obtaihed; and provide training to ns 
Section 504 Coordinator, all University administrat'JTS, and any staff who 
will be involVed in responding to reports of disabili:y dis:rimination 
regarding the University's obl.igation t() promptly respond to Section 504 
grievances,'as well as the: University's revised 'pro\;edures for how such 
complaints should be reported and how they will be investigated. 
REPORTING REQUIREMENT: Within 90 valendar day. after the University has 
adopted rhe revised grievance procedure, drafted pursuant 10 item lLA, 1-7, the 
University will submit to OCR documentation to verify that it implemented hems 
IILA and B a ove, including but not limited to a copy of lh ~ notice sent to students 
and fa<..'Ulty, a copy of the revised Student Handbook and Employee Handbook, the 
link to the grie\'allce procedure on the University's websiu, and any agendas, 
outlinr.s., handouts, and sign-in sheets from the training(s) provided to faculty and 
st~ff. 
The University understands that OCR will not close the monitoring of the 
Agrceme .t until OCR determines that tile reQipient has fulfilled the tenm of the 
Agreemer.t and is in compliance witll the n:gulation implementing Section 504, at 
34 C.F.R. §§ 104.4, 104.7, and 104.42, which were at issue in this case. 
The University understands that by signing the Agreemcn\ it agrees to provide data 
and other infcnnation in a timely manner in accordance with the TCyorting 
requirt:ments ofthe Agreement. Further, the University understands that during the 
monitoring of the Agreement, if necess?I)', OCR may visit the University, 
interview staff and students, and reque;;,t ~~Gh additional reports or data as aTe 
necessary for OCR to detennine whether theqntyersity ras fulfilled the temlS of 
the Agreement and is in co·ir.pliance with 'th~ r'o'guUition implementing Section 504, 
at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.4, 104.7, and 104.42, w.hich were at ;s5ue in this case. 
Spring Ar~; University 
"7j'. -r-/I ,7 ~'.,/"", / ...../)'/::;'".. ?<~ ~.V;~V(/~tiLM#6 
President or authoTizcd designee 
Charles H. Hebb, .President 
Date 
"',.