Accomodations for Parents with Disabilties

Accommodations for Parents with Disabilities Karen Haase khaase@hslegalfirm.com @KarenHaase H & S School Law

I.

Introduction

A 2012 report published by the National Council on Disability1 states that there are currently 4.1 million parents with disabilities in the United States. That means that roughly 6.2 percent of all American parents with children under the age of 18 have some sort of disabling condition. The rates are even higher for some subgroups of this population. For example, 13.9 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native parents and 8.8 percent of African American parents have a disability. Further, 6 percent of white, 5.5 percent of Latino/Hispanic, and 3.3 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander parents have a disability.

Special education professionals are familiar with the wide range of accommodations the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act require districts to make for students with disabilities. However, many professionals are unaware of or unfamiliar with their obligations to parents with disabilities. In this session, we will begin with a review of the federal statutes and regulations which require school districts to accommodate parents’ disabilities.

We will then consider specific examples of cases and other legal decisions that address school districts’ obligations to parents.

Keep in mind that the cases cited in this article may carry precedential weight for a particular situation, but different facts can, and often do, lead to different outcomes. Please consult legal counsel for specific advice concerning your 1

"Rocking the Cradle: Ensuring the Rights of Parents with Disabilities and Their Children" National Council on Disability, September 27, 2012.

Page 1 of 15

situation. The full text of the judicial and administrative decisions referenced in this article can be found in LRP Publications’ Individuals with Disabilities Education Law Report® (IDELR) and Special Ed Connection® Website at http://www.specialedconnection.com.

II.

Statutory and Regulatory Background A.

Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act

Under the IDEA, certain procedural guarantees exist regarding the development of any individualized education plan (IEP). One of the IDEA’s core features is that parents must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate in the formulation of the IEP, and receive notice of any proposed changes in their children's educational programs. Title 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400(c)(5)(B) and 1414(a)(1)(D).

The IDEA regulations require school districts to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP Team meeting, and to ensure that the parents " are afforded the opportunity to participate…." 34 C.F.R. § 300.322 (a). School districts "must take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parent understands the proceedings of the IEP Team meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for parents with deafness or whose native language is other than English." 34 C.F.R. § 300.322 (e). Finally, the school district must give the parent "a copy of the child's IEP at no cost to the parent."

34 C.F.R. § 300.322 (f).

While the IDEA regulations do not explicitly require school districts to provide copies of special education-related documents to parents in their native language, regulatory agencies have held that providing translated documents is a major way that schools can prove that parents were given the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the development of their child's IEP. At least one state (California) specifically provides that school districts are obligated to ensure that a parent or guardian understands the IEP documents themselves, which must be provided to the parent in his or her primary language upon request. CAL. CODE REGS., tit. 5, § 3040, subd. (b).

B.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides in pertinent part: Page 2 of 15

No otherwise qualified individual with handicaps in the United States, as defined in section 706(8) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. . . .

29 U.S.C.A. ยง 794(a).

The regulations implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibit recipients of federal funds from providing a qualified person with a disability an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective as that provided to others. 34 C.F.R. ยง 104.4(b)(l)(iii). Such aid, benefit, or service includes a parent's participation in his/her child's education program.

Under Section 504 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, school districts cannot deny a qualified disabled person the benefits of, exclude him or her from participation in, or otherwise subject him or her to discrimination because its facilities are inaccessible or unusable by disabled persons. See 34 C.F.R. 104.21 and 28 C.F.R. 35.149.

The Section 504 regulations provide that parents of non-disabled students who themselves have disabilities fall within the definition of "qualified handicapped persons" with respect to "other services" if they meet the essential eligibility requirements to receive such services. 34 C.F.R. ยง104.3(l)(4), C.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Under the ADA regulations, a public entity is required to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, and members of the public with disabilities are as effective as communications with others. 28 C.F.R. ยง 35.160(a).

Moreover, pursuant to the ADA regulations if an alternate effective means of communication is not provided, a public entity may decline to provide the disabled person's primary choice of communications only if the public entity demonstrates, in writing, that such provision would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. 28 C.F.R. ยง 35.164. Should the public entity effectively demonstrate such a fundamental programmatic alteration or burden, the public Page 3 of 15

entity is still obligated to ensure that the disabled person receives the benefits or services provided by the public entity to the maximum extent possible.

D.

Physical Accessibility

Title II of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination by all public entities at the local (i.e. school district, municipal, city, county) and state level. Public entities must comply with Title II regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Justice.

These regulations cover access to all programs and services offered by the entity. Access includes physical access described in the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and programmatic access that might be obstructed by discriminatory policies or procedures of the entity.

The Section 504 and Title II regulations establish two legal standards for providing accessibility to people with disabilities, depending on whether the facilities are "existing facilities" or "new construction." Under Section 504, existing facilities are facilities constructed prior to June 3, 1977; under Title II, existing facilities are facilities constructed prior to January 26, 1992.

Both laws require recipients and public entities to operate the programs, services, and activities conducted in their existing facilities so that, when viewed in their entirety, they are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This may be achieved through redesigning equipment, reassigning classes or other services to accessible buildings, altering existing facilities and constructing new facilities, or other methods that result in making the programs and activities accessible to persons with disabilities. See 34 C.F.R. ยง 104.22(b) and 28 C.F.R. ยง 35.150(b).

Neither law requires a recipient or public entity to make all its existing facilities or every part of an existing facility accessible. However, recipients and public entities are required to adopt and implement procedures to ensure that interested persons can obtain information as to the existence and location of services, activities, and facilities that are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. See 34 C.F.R. ยง 104.22(f) and 28 C.F.R. ยง 35.163(a).

Page 4 of 15

III.

Case Law A.

Physical Accessibility 1.

Tacoma (WA) School District No. 10, 108 LRP 1045 (OCR, Western Division, 2007)

A parent of a kindergarten student had trouble walking.

The family's neighborhood school was built in 1901 and was not accessible and the parent complained repeatedly to the principal about the lack of access to drop off and pick up his child. There was consistent conflict between the parent and the school about accessibility. The school district made alterations to the parking lot and other areas of the school that were unsatisfactory to the parent. Eventually the parent requested that his student attend a different, handicapped-accessible building for first grade. He then requested and was denied transportation for the student to and from the new school. The school began providing transportation after the complaint was filed. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) found: (1) the district did not provide the parent with programs and activities which were readily accessible during the student's kindergarten year; (2) the transfer of the student was an acceptable method for providing accessibility to its programs and activities, and the failure to initially provide transportation was not a violation of section 504 and Title II; and (3) the district's failure to publish the name, title or contact information of the disability coordinator was a violation of section 504.

B.

Participation in IEP Meetings 1.

Talbot County (PA) Pub. Schs., 45 IDELR 45 (OCR Eastern Division 2005)

A parent who suffered from severe hearing loss requested the district to use computer assisted real-time translation during her son's IEP meetings. The district refused and instead instructed staff to make eye contact with the parent, refrain from holding sidebar conversations, pace speech so that it could be recorded, plan on extra time for the meeting, and provide the parent with a laptop note-taker. The parent showed that during some of the meetings, staff members were not given the appropriate instructions. At one meeting, the laptop notetaker was not able to keep pace with the discussion and did not record all that was said. At another meeting, no laptop note-taker was provided.

The Office for Civil Rights found that the district violated Section 504 because the parent was unable to participate in her son's meeting effectively. While the Page 5 of 15

district was not required to adopt the parent's preferred methodology, OCR ordered it to provide a means of communication that would allow the parent to participate in the meeting effectively.

2.

Los Angeles Unified School District, 107 LRP 2570 (SEA Cal. 2006)

A parent argued that the school district denied her meaningful participation in her child's IEP because it failed to provide a state "certified" interpreter. The administrative law judge held that there is no requirement under federal or state law that a state "certified" interpreter is required. In addition to providing a trained Spanish/English interpreter at the assessment plan and IEP meetings, the assessment plan was provided in Spanish, and several district assessors also explained concepts and procedures to the mother in Spanish.

3.

Colorado School for the Deaf and the Blind, 113 LRP 2971, (SEA Colo. 2012)

During an IEP meeting, staff members who worked with the parents' hearingimpaired student held conversations in American Sign Language (ASL). The parents were not fluent in ASL. The parents claimed in a state-level complaint that this excluded them from meaningful participation in the development of the student's IEP. The complaints officer found as a matter of fact that the staff did have a brief exchange in ASL at one of the student's IEP meetings. The exchange related to a snack fee that the parents had not paid, and as such, was unrelated to any substantive discussion of the student's IEP. The complaints officer wrote, "Regardless of the content of the exchange, communicating in ASL at an IEP meeting when Parents are not proficient in ASL excludes Parents from that discussion. In fact, [Grade] Teacher chose to communicate in ASL because she was unsure of whether she should bring the matter up at the IEP meeting and wanted to check with CSDB Special Education Director before doing so."

The complaints officer concluded that this "brief and isolated incident . . . did not prevent Parents from meaningfully participating in the development of Student's IEP."

Page 6 of 15

C.

Tape Recording IEP Meeting 1.

Regulations

The IDEA and its implementing regulations do not contain a provision that authorizes the recording of IEP meetings or requires school districts to permit it.

The appendix to the 1999 regulations, in Appendix A, states in pertinent part: 21. May IEP meetings be audio or video tape recorded? Part B does not address the use of audio or video recording devices at IEP meetings, and no other Federal statute either authorizes or prohibits the recording of an IEP meeting by either a parent or a school official. Therefore, an SEA or public agency has the option to require, prohibit, limit, or otherwise regulate the use of recording devices at IEP meetings.

If a public agency has a policy that prohibits or limits the use of recording devices at IEP meetings, that policy must provide for exceptions if they are necessary to ensure that the parent understands the IEP or the IEP process or to implement other parental rights guaranteed under Part B. An SEA or school district that adopts a rule regulating the tape recording of IEP meetings also should ensure that it is uniformly applied. ...

Parents wishing to use audio or video recording devices at IEP meetings should consult State or local policies for further guidance.

2.

Guidance from Office of Special Education Programs

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has issued numerous letters and memoranda that have addressed the issue of recording of an IEP meeting.

In Letter to Doerr, 213 IDELR 127, 213 LRP 9042 (OSEP 1988), it stated that "a recorder should be allowed if either the parents or school official request ... In those instances, where the request is made to use a recorder at a meeting, there is little to be gained by denying the request ... although our informal view would permit the use of tape recorders in IEP meetings, we do not have the authority under existing regulations to either require or prohibit their use." OSEP backed away from this position a few years later in Amendment of OSEP 88-17 Page 7 of 15

regarding use of tape recorders at IEP meetings, OSEP 91-24 (OSEP 1991).

The document stated that "this current memorandum is not intended to alter the conclusion previously noted at OSEP 88-17 that a decision regarding whether parents may tape record IEP meetings should be left to the discretion of the local school districts, based upon local consideration." Subsequently, in Letter to Anonymous, 40 IDELR 70, 103 LRP 49595 (OSEP June 4, 2003) OSEP stated that "the position expressed in memorandum 88-17 does not reflect OSEP's current position regarding the use of audio or video tape recordings at IEP team meetings." As "[P]art B does not address the use of audio or video recording devices at IEP meetings, and no other federal statute authorizes or prohibits the recording of an IEP meeting by either a parent or a school official ... therefore, an SEA or public agency has the option to require, prohibit, limit, or otherwise regulate the use of recording devices at IEP meetings." [Emphasis added].

3.

State Wiretap Statutes

Most states have specific statutes governing the tape-recording of telephone conversations as well as of face-to-face meetings. Local districts should consult with their attorneys about their state-specific statutes.2 4.

Case Law a)

Kaskaskia (IL) Special Educ. Dist. 801, 16 IDELR 132 (OCR Midwestern Division 1989)

In Kaskaskia, a parent complained that he had a learning disability that prevented him from taking notes at his son's IEP meeting and asked to tape record the IEP meeting. The district told the parent that staff members objected to being taped. The district offered to provide an unbiased note-taker who would provide the parent with written, legible notes at the conclusion of the IEP meeting, at the district's expense. OCR concluded that tape recording was not the only means of assisting the disabled parent, that the district's offer of notetaker was a good faith effort to meet the parent's needs, and that the district could refuse to allow the parent to tape record the meeting if it accommodated the parent's needs in another way, such as by providing a note-taker.

2

For a summary of state wiretap statutes, see http://www.peterswire.net/appendix_A_state_wiretap_laws.pdf.

Page 8 of 15

b)

Belvidere Community Unit School District No. 100, 112 LRP 12955 (SEA Ill. 2012)

Parents claimed that the mother's ADHD and dyslexia entitled them to tape record their student's IEP meeting. The district offered to retain a service organization that provides services to disabled adults at no cost to the parent, explaining that this independent advocate could help the disabled parent by explaining and answering their questions and could take extensive notes for the parent's reference. The hearing officer found that the school district's offer of accommodation to the parents through an independent advocate constituted a "reasonable accommodation." The district is not required to allow tape recording of an IEP meeting absent mutual agreement of both the Parents and the individual IEP Team members. c)

E.H. v. Tirozzi, 16 IDELR 787, 16 LRP 761 (D. Conn.

1990)

The parents of a 13-year-old student with Downs Syndrome sought an order requiring the school district to permit the tape recording of IEP meetings. The mother's native language was Danish, and she had difficulty understanding written and spoken English. She requested the tape recording in order to review the meetings at home with the assistance of a dictionary. The student's teacher, who also participated in the meetings, refused to be tape recorded, claiming that tape recording "alienates people and creates tension."

The district court judge wrote, "Without a clear understanding of what that plan entails, E.H. cannot effectively evaluate the program to determine whether she believes it to be in her child's best interest. Accordingly, she cannot complain, in any meaningful way, with respect to any matter relating to the IEP, which is her right . . . .

The judge rejected the school district's argument that the special education teacher had a privacy interest in not being tape recorded. He reasoned that the teacher's expectation of privacy was diminished in light of her position and the context of an IEP meeting. d)

V.W v. Favolise, 16 IDELR 1070, 16 LRP 783 (U.S. Dist. Conn 1990)

The mother claimed that a disabling injury to her hand made note taking difficult.

The father said that he was unable to attend IEP meetings because of his work Page 9 of 15

schedule. He argued that a verbatim record would enable him to gain some understanding of what transpired and would allow him to discuss and arrive at informed decisions regarding his son's education.

The court held that the parents were entitled to tape record the IEP meetings, "Plaintiffs need not demonstrate some wellspring for their right to tape record meetings, particularly where, as here, they are given a statutory right to attend and participate in those meetings. It would seem that such a right is, and should be, innate."

The special education director did not do the district any favors when he testified against the parents' request to tape IEP meetings. He stated that if taping were allowed, school officials and teachers would meet privately to arrive at a consensus that would, implicitly, dictate the substance of the IEP, and parents would be "left out of the collaborative 'loop." The court noted that even if this were true, "and the "professional" members of the team resort to illegal 'consensus-building,' it is manifest that plaintiffs would have an unquestioned right to seek judicial enforcement of their statutory right to participate in the formulation of their child's educational program."

D.

Access to IEP Documents 1.

Letter to Boswell, 49 IDELR 196, 108 LRP 2214 (OSEP 2007)

IDEA does not specifically require school districts to provide written translations of IEP documents. However, OSEP observed that IEP documents translated into a parent's native language could help a district to prove parental consent for evaluation or services if the issue were ever to arise. When a parent's primary language is a language other than English, a district must take steps to ensure that the parent understands and has the opportunity to participate in the IEP process. The letter stated that "[f]or parents who read in their native language, providing the parents with written translations of the IEP documents may be one way for a school district to demonstrate that the parent has been fully informed of [his or her] child's educational program."

2.

New Haven Unified School District, 110 LRP 44200 (Cal. SEA 2010)

The parents' primary language was Spanish. The evidence established that at least one member of each IEP team during the school years at issue in the Page 10 of 15

litigation was able to interpret from English to Spanish for the mother. However, the school did not provide the mother with copies of the IEP documents in Spanish. In the due process proceeding, the mother contended that she was denied meaningful participation in the decision-making process regarding her child's educational program because she couldn't read the documents the team was discussing.

The ALJ concluded that the district's failure to get documents translated denied the mother meaningful participation. Since the mother could not understand the documents, she was deprived of timely information in her native language and thereby, deprived of meaningful participation in the IEP process.

3.

Sidney Public Schools, 110 LRP 19430 (SEA Neb. 2010)

The mother had a visual impairment which prevented her from reading text which was not in at least 36 point bold font. The district provided some documents to the mother in her requested font and at other times read the documents aloud to her. The mother claimed that district's failure to provide all documents to her in a format which she could read violated IDEA, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. She further claimed that the district's refusal to provide her with textbooks and other homework materials in an accessible format violated the IDEA, the ADA and section 504.

The hearing officer concluded that the district was not required to provide the mother with documents in a particular format. He held that the district is legally obligated to communicate with special education parents in a manner reasonably calculated to provide them with effective notice of IEP meetings and the like. As to homework, he noted that school district officials testified without contradiction that parents were not expected to read students' textbooks or other homework papers. Rather, they were asked only to provide a quiet place for students to work and to hold students accountable for working on assignments. Therefore, he reasoned, the mother was not denied any benefit that was available to nondisabled parents and was not prevented from participating meaningfully in her son's education.

Page 11 of 15

E.

Other School Activities 1.

In general: Rothschild v. Grottenthaler, 16 IDELR 1020, 16 LRP 772 (2d Cir. 1990)

The deaf parents of a non-handicapped student sought an order requiring the district to provide a sign language interpreter at school activities and meetings.

The school district conceded that the parents were disabled and basically admitted that the parents were denied an opportunity to participate in schoolinitiated activities concerning their children's education by reason of their handicaps. The district argued, however, that the parents were not "otherwise qualified" for the offered activities. According to the School District, "Section 504 does not apply to plaintiffs because public schools are for children, not their parents and Section 504 was designed to protect children, not their parents."

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that a school district is not only subject to Section 504 in the provision of educational services to handicapped children, but also must refrain, under Reg. 104.3(k)(4), from discriminating against "qualified" handicapped persons in the provision of "other services," such as parent-oriented meetings and conferences. The parents' inability to participate effectively in school activities without the assistance of an interpreter obligated the district under Section 504 to make reasonable accommodations during such programs. The Court of Appeals noted, however, that the District Court specifically limited the interpreter services to school-initiated activities, holding that the parents were responsible for providing their own interpreter during extracurricular activities. The Court of Appeals therefore overruled the portion of the District Court's judgment which required provision of interpreter services at extracurricular activities, including the child's graduation.

2.

Field Trips: Mt. Diablo (CA) Unified School District, 44 IDELR 261, 105 LRP 47481 (OCR Western Division 2005)

Parents who had hearing impairments asked the district to provide them with an interpreter so they could chaperone their child's field trip. The district refused. Its policy was to provide interpreter services to parents for "mandatory" activities.

The parents filed a complaint with OCR, which found that the district had not violated the ADA or Section 504. Federal law requires that a district provide auxiliary aids and services that are necessary to ensure that individuals with Page 12 of 15

disabilities have equal access to communication or participation in programs that are intended to benefit them. OCR noted that parents were entitled to auxiliary aids and services for programs and activities operated for their benefit or the benefit of the public, such as graduation ceremonies, parent-teacher conferences, etc. Since field trips were offered for the benefit of the student and not the parent, the district did not violate the ADA or Section 504 by requiring the parents to provide their own interpreters when they wished to chaperone. OCR cautioned the district that its policy of only providing interpreters for "mandatory" activities could violate Section 504, pointing out that many activities to which parents must be provided access are "voluntary." Finally, OCR noted that if the parents were excluded because they brought their own interpreter, or otherwise on the basis of their disability, they should file another complaint with OCR. 3.

Parent Teacher Conferences: Escondido (CA) Union Elementary School District, 17 IDELR 767, 17 LRP 1400 (OCR Western Division 1991)

Hearing impaired parents asked for an interpreter "with strong voicing skills" to accommodate them at parent/teacher conferences. The parents demanded that the interpreter provided by the district be a licensed ASL interpreter. The school provided a teacher of the deaf who was qualified to interpret in ASL to sign interpret at the conference. The parents insisted that the teachers were not qualified, as they were not "licensed interpreters," and refused to accept their services. The complainants then cancelled the parent/teacher conference.

OCR found that the interpreter offered by the district had extensive training and experience in ASL. Although the district had no formal, written policy regarding the provision of interpreting services for deaf parents or guardians, the offer of a teacher who had experience in communicating with deaf students through ASL met the district's obligation to reasonably accommodate the parents' disability under Section 504.

4.

Graduation: National Holistic University, 103 LRP 47165 (OCR Western Division 2003)

A hearing impaired father used ASL as his preferred means of communication.

The complainant requested that the university provide him with a qualified ASL interpreter so that he could have meaningful access to the program offered by the university at his daughter's graduation ceremony. The university refused to provide a qualified interpreter or an equally effective method of making aurally delivered information available to the complainant at the graduation ceremony.

Page 13 of 15

OCR informed the university that Section 504 required it to provide meaningful access to activities offered to all parents. The university agreed to revise its policy and to pay the parent his costs for the interpreter services.

5.

Volunteering in Classroom: Hillsboro (OR) School District 1J, 59 IDELR 82, 112 LRP 24912 (OCR, Western Division 2012)

A parent with a disability who used a service dog tried to volunteer in her child's kindergarten class. The parent had previously volunteered for an hour and a half in the kindergarten class with her service dog without causing distractions or raising safety concerns. Then district officials inquired about her need for the animal and the services it performed. It further requested that the mother provide proof of insurance and vaccinations, and training certifications for the animal before she could continue volunteering accompanied by her dog. Other volunteers weren't required to provide insurance information as they were covered by the district's liability and workers' compensation policies.

OCR found that these inquiries and requests violated both Title II and Section 504.

OCR referenced the Department of Justice's new Title II regulations regarding service animals which provide that a public entity may only ask if a service animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. Moreover, a public entity cannot require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Under 28 C.F.R. 35.136(g), individuals with disabilities shall be permitted to be accompanied by their service animals in all areas of a public entity's facilities where members of the public, participants in services, programs or activities, or invitees, as relevant, are allowed to go.

School districts may not exclude qualified persons with disabilities from participating in programs or activities they offer and may not otherwise limit or impede such individuals in the enjoyment of any opportunities enjoyed by nondisabled individuals. OCR directed the district to allow the parent to volunteer accompanied by her service animal without having to furnish any documentation unless the district noted one or more legally justifiable reasons for excluding the animal.

Page 14 of 15

6.

School Board Meetings: Lake-Lehman (PA) School District, 20 IDELR 546, 20 LRP 2436 (OCR Eastern Division 1993)

A complainant whose sister was hearing impaired asked the district to provide her with a sign language interpreter at a regular school board meeting. When the district did not provide a sign language interpreter for his sister, the complainant arranged for an interpreter to attend the school board meeting to aid her. The complainant then sent the district a bill for the sign language interpreter's services. He informed the district that his sister would attend every regular school board meeting until further notice and requested that a sign language interpreter be provided for her at these meetings. The district denied the request for interpreter services because it did not believe it was responsible for providing an interpreter unless the meeting involved the academic or disciplinary situation of the sister's child. The district did not offer any other possible accommodations to the complainant's sister and stated that it would not pay the bill that the complainant had submitted.

OCR found that the District's school board meetings are also in the category of "other services" as defined in 34 C.F.R. Section 104.3(k)(4). OCR explained that the school board meetings were open to the general public, and anyone could attend and participate through asking questions or making comments.

Therefore, OCR concluded that the board's practice of only providing an interpreter when the board meeting involved the academic or disciplinary situation of a disabled person's child was discriminatory.

As a qualified person with a disability, the complainant's sister was entitled to equally effective access to the district's school board meetings. Because these meetings had allowed the general public to participate through questions and comments during the meeting, the complainant's sister should have been afforded an aid or service that would have allowed her to understand what was being said, to ask questions, and to make comments just as other members of the public could do.

Page 15 of 15