Payan vs. LACCD

According to the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) in 2019, the students successfully proved to the court that class materials were not accessible to them because screenreading software was not compatible.

The judge ruled that LACCD would not be required to do anything if it amounted to “an undue financial or administrative burden or would result in the fundamental alteration.” damage civil rights. You cannot both honor and hold our rights hostage as a negotiation tool.”

LACCD appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that plaintiffs should not be allowed to file claims using the “disparate impact” theory of discrimination, which is unintentional, under the ADA and Section 504.

The appeal was ruled in favor of Payan and Mason. The appellate court ruled that the ADA and Section 504 were made to specifically address intentional and unintentional discrimination.

But Judge Kenneth K. Lee disagreed. Lee said the ADA and Section 504 only prohibit intentional discrimination.

Associate Dean of Services for Students with Disabilities at LA Valley College David Green echoed Grossman’s concerns and said if the District decides to move forward, it would be advocating for the removal of the ADA, a necessary tool for many searching for equal access to education.

“These actions are at odds with our own guiding principles and have the potential to permanently scar our District's reputation on how we include, educate and support our students with disabilities,” Green said.

LACCD Director of

On Nov. 17, LACCD lawyers told the federal trial court to place a hold on the case as the District was planning on moving the case to the United States Supreme Court.

The DREDF said if the District were successful the Supreme Court would rule the ADA and Section 504 do not prohibit disparate impact. Unintentional discrimination accounts for many cases of discrimination against people with disabilities, potentially devastating the ADA and Section 504.

Communications and External Relations William Boyer said to the Los Angeles Times that the District does not seek to challenge the constitutionality of the ADA.

“The issue right now is whether a person should be able to sue a publicly funded entity, and to profit from taxpayer money, for non-intentional discrimination,” Boyer said.

[See Payan vs. LACCD on pg. 3]