Call 1-800-949-4ADA
for Technical Assistance

OCR Letter: University of California - Davis

Dr. Theodore Hullar
Chancellor
University of California, Davis
Davis, California 95616
Complaint No. 09-92-2101-I

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Education (Department), has completed its investigation of the complaint filed against the University of California at Davis (UCD) by [ ] father of a daughter with a hearing-impairment. The daughter (hereinafter referred to as R) is currently enrolled at UCD. It is undisputed that R relies on a sign language interpreter, as a necessary "auxiliary aid," to make her courses at UCD accessible. The complainant alleged that during the academic year 1991-1992, UCD had policies and practices of interrupting interpreter services, as implemented with respect to R, that violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

OCR is responsible for enforcing Section 504 and its implementing Regulation, found at 34 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 104. As a recipient of Federal financial assistance, UCD is required to comply with the provisions of Section 504 and the Regulation, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. OCR is also responsible for enforcing Title II, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and the implementing Regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, which prohibits discrimination in all services, programs and activities of state and local governments.

OCR has completed its investigation of the allegation in this complaint. OCR found that some of the practices and policies of UCD provided for interruption of sign language interpreter services to hearing impaired students in a manner that violated Section 504 and Title II. However, UCD has submitted to OCR a written commitment which, when implemented, will bring UCD into compliance with Section 504 and Title II. OCR therefore finds UCD in compliance with Section 504, Title II and the regulations concerning the allegation investigated in this complaint.

The following is a summary of the findings of fact, the applicable legal standards, and the compliance determinations made regarding the allegations which the complainant filed with OCR.

Legal Standard

The OCR investigation was conducted under the jurisdiction of Section 504 and the Department implementing Regulation found at 34 C.F.R. Part 104, and Title II and its implementing Regulation found at 28 C.F.R. Part 35. Under 34 C.F.R. § 1043(j)(1), an individual with a disability is one who has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity, who has a record of such an impairment, or who is regarded as having such an impairment. Under 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(k)(3), with respect to postsecondary services, a qualified person with a disability is one who meets the academic and technical standards requisite to admission or participation in the recipient's education program or activity.

Under 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(a), recipients of Federal funds are prohibited from discriminating against persons with disabilities in any program or activity which receives Federal financial assistance. Under 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(d), a recipient shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that no disabled student is denied the benefits of, excluded from participation in, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under the education program or activity operated by the recipient because of the absence of educational auxiliary aids for students with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills. Auxiliary aids include interpreters.

Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a), no qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity. In interpreting the regulations implementing Title II, OCR reads 28 C.F.R. Part 35 at section 35.130 in combination with section 35.103. Section 35.103 requires that Title II entities not apply a lesser standard than Section 504 standards, unless specifically stated. Sections 35.130(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) provide that a public entity, in providing any aid, benefit or service may not afford a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate that is not equal to, or as effective as, that provided to others. In light of section 35.103, OCR interprets sections 35.130(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) to require universities and colleges to provide auxiliary aids to the same extent as is required under Section 504.

Under 28 C.F.R. § 160(a), a public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with participants with disabilities are as effective as communications with others. According to 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b) 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. In determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, a public entity shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities. The Department of Justice's interpretive guidance accompanying Title II regulations states that "Although in some circumstances a notepad and written materials may be sufficient to permit effective communication, in other circumstances they may not be sufficient. For example, a qualified interpreter may be necessary when the information being communicated is complex, or is exchanged for a lengthy period of time. Generally, factors to be considered in determining whether an interpreter is required include the context in which the communication is taking place, the number of people involved, and the importance of the communication."

Summary of Findings

OCR found that R had a congenital hearing impairment that substantially limits one or more of her major life activities. Therefore, OCR considers R an individual with a disability under 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(j)(1). For purposes of 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(k)(3), OCR finds that R met the criteria for admission to, and continued participation at, UCD education program, and is therefore a qualified person with a disability for purposes of Section 504 and Title II.
During the 1991-92 academic year, R received interpreters for 209 separate class sessions, but for 20 class sessions sign language interpreters were only present half the session (nine times) or not at all (11 times). Referring to the nine classes that were half-covered by interpreters, on six occasions this was due to interpreter illness, and the other three occasions were due to interpreter shortages and scheduling conflicts known in advance. Referring to the 11 classes that were not covered by interpreters, one occasion was due to interpreter illness, and the other 10 were due to interpreter shortages and scheduling conflicts known in advance. The foregoing figures describe classes at which R was ready and willing to participate in the class but was unable to because no interpreter was present. UCD also provided OCR with a summary of the times that R was responsible for "late cancellations" or "no shows." A late cancellation, according to the July 16, 1992, letter to OCR from Connie Burton, Coordinator of the UCD Disability Resource Center (DRC), means that R canceled the interpreter for that class the same day (rather than 48 hours in advance) as the class was scheduled to occur. A no show means that R did not attend class by the appointed time--the interpreter waited ten minutes and then left. During the 1991-1992 school year, R had 19 late cancellations and two no shows.

According to the July 16, 1992, letter to OCR from Connie Burton, in all cases of both half-covered and uncovered classes, R had access to information presented in class via a Communication Assistant (CA), who is a trained note taker not enrolled in the class. When UCD knew the interpreter would not be available, accommodation was provided through the use of two additional note takers or audio taping, for later interpretation.

According to UCD, R did not meet with her counselor in a timely manner to complete and sign her winter 1992 quarter Auxiliary Services Agreement and Hearing Impaired Student Responsibilities for Interpreting Services forms. R had been verbally informed that the document needed to be signed before a specific date, and she had also been reminded, on a weekly basis for three consecutive weeks via notes left in her mail folder, to sign the agreement. Nevertheless, despite not having signed her Auxiliary Services Agreement, UCD provided interpreters and CAs to R for the first three weeks of the winter 1992 quarter. On January 28, 1992, UCD interrupted interpreter services provided to R for the duration of one English class. The class instructor contacted the DRC, and complained about the lack of assistance for R. She was advised that the services would be restored, but R had to first contact her counselor. R visited the DRC office, and also complained about the absence of services. R was informed that she needed to complete a new service agreement. R made an appointment to see her counselor, and her assistance services were restored the same day.

On a second occasion, R's interpreter and CA services were not initiated on April 6, 1992, the first day of instruction for spring 1992 quarter because she did not attend the spring accommodation meeting on April 5, 1992, to confirm her class schedule and interpreter request. R did not attend the April 5, 1992, mandatory meeting for the 1992 spring quarter, nor did she notify the DRC prior to her failure to attend. Although UCD provided documentation that three notices regarding the mandatory meeting were placed in the complainant's mailbox, she did not attend or telephone to explain her absence.

Due to the shortage of sign language interpreters, UCD developed alternatives for interpretation methods for the hearing impaired which included live-time stenocaptioning; taped lectures and transcription by stenocaptioner at a later date; taped lectures and interpretation at a later date; use of an oral interpreter; or two note takers in addition to the use of a CA.

During the first weeks in March 1992, UCD scheduled a meeting to demonstrate stenocaptioning to hearing impaired students and to decide what alternatives to sign language interpreters were to be provided for each student. UCD stated that a demonstration of real-time stenocaptioning was held for all hearing impaired students who use interpreters and CAs. Students were asked if, in the event that sign language interpreters were not available, they would be interested in using this alternative, and they gave their responses. R stated that she attended the demonstration of the real-time stenocaptioning and that she was present for the entire presentation. UCD assigned stenocaptioners to two of R's non-science lecture classes in the spring 1992 quarter based on R's stated interest in trying the procedure.

On April 9, 1992, a meeting was held with R, her parents, her counselor, and the Disabilities Resource Center Coordinator. At the meeting, the shortage of sign language interpreters was discussed, as well as the stenocaptioning alternative. R subsequently stated that stenocaptioning was not an acceptable substitute for sign language interpreters because she was not able to understand their translations. As a result of the April 9, 1992, meeting, UCD agreed that R's spring 1992 quarter classes that could not be covered by interpreters, one class hour of Political Science 2 and Economics 1A, would be audio taped by R for later interpretation. Based on a subsequent interpreter schedule change, UCD was able to cover Economics 1A with interpreters. When R dropped Economics 1A and added Native American Studies, UCD was also able to cover that class with interpreters.
UCD was able to find an interpreter for R's Political Science 2 class for two of the three mornings per week, on a regular basis. The DRC office notified R that sign language interpreters were not available for one of the mornings. R was advised that other options were available or she could choose to do without assistance. R responded on the Alternative to Sign Language form that her first option in the absence of interpreters would be two note takers in addition to a CA. Her second choice was taped lectures interpreted at a later date, and her third choice was live time stenocaptioning. R subsequently eliminated stenocaptioning as an option. The DRC file contains a signed note, dated May 4, 1992, from R stating that she decided to have her Political Science 2 class taped on Wednesdays and interpreted later.

R was cautioned in April about canceling interpreter services on short notice. R was advised that not following set policy with respect to cancellations caused additional expense. R was notified in writing that if she waited until the last minute to cancel interpreters she ran the risk of not having services for her class. Another memorandum from DRC to R states that "As of April 27, 1992, I have not received your midterm cancellations for spring quarter that was due on April 17, 1992. When I spoke to you on Thursday, April 23, I asked you to please turn the cancellations in by Friday, April 24. Please turn these in no later than Friday, May 1. If these cancellations are not turned in by that time, all interpreting and CA services will be canceled starting on Monday, May 4, 1992."

The DRC logs state that on April 27, 1992, a memorandum was sent asking R to fill out midterm cancellations by Friday or her interpreters would be suspended. On April 30, 1992, R's counselor left a message on R's phone that if she did not cancel midterms, her services would be suspended.

In a memorandum dated May 7, 1992, from R's counselor to R on "Missed Appointments," the counselor stated "As I explained to you previously, on May 4, 1992, you have a regularly scheduled appointment with me at 2:00 p.m. every Thursday. It is imperative that we work together to provide you with the accommodations you have requested. At that time I told you that if you did not come for regularly scheduled appointments or notify us properly with respect to cancellations, that your services were subject to suspension. I had quite a few items which needed discussion this afternoon with respect to your accommodations and provision of them. Please schedule an appointment with me on Monday. As per our agreement, your services will be canceled until you make this appointment." The DRC file notations to the memorandum indicate that on May 7, 1992, R missed her two o'clock appointment with her counselor.

The complainant further alleged that on May 20, 1992, R's interpreter service was taken away again, and used for other students. UCD explained to OCR that R's interpreter was unable to provide interpretation for approximately 30 minutes at the end of R's class because R's switch to that class was last minute and the interpreter was overbooked.

Legal Analysis

This OCR investigation sought to determine whether UCD, during the academic year 1991-1992, had policies and practices of interrupting interpreter services, as implemented with respect to R, in a manner that violated Section 504 and Title II. OCR review of UCD policies revealed that several different circumstances existed where sign language interpreter services could be withheld to obtain compliance with rules maintained by UCD pertaining to hearing impaired students. As we conclude that as to some, but not all, rules this practice violated Section 504 and Title II, we analyze each rule separately below. This remains a developing area of the law. The organizing principle analysis in this case has been that UCD cannot convert what is a right created by regulation (i.e., interpreters for students who need them in order to obtain access to UCD curriculum) into a privilege that can be revoked to obtain compliance with any rule of the UCD making. Conversely, delivering interpreters on cost effective basis requires advance planning and the cooperation of the student served in order to avoid paying for interpreters that are not utilized. Thus students cannot expect interpreters, any more than any other university service, to be provided when they do not fulfill the necessary prerequisites directly related to delivery of that service. In the following legal analysis, the term "HI student" refers to a hearing impaired student for whom auditory assistance or lip reading does not render the classroom accessible, but for whom the classroom is accessible when qualified sign language interpreters are provided.

Two no-shows or late cancellations results in suspension of interpreter services for all classes until HI student meets with DRC counselor. OCR investigation showed that UCD must pay an interpreter full price when an HI student no shows or late cancels by failing to provide 48 hours advance notice of cancellation. Furthermore, in the event of interpreter shortage, advance notice of cancellation enables UCD to make an interpreter available elsewhere to a HI student who would not otherwise have the use of an interpreter. OCR finds that in general the UCD policy of suspending interpreter services until the HI student meets with a DRC counselor, is a reasonable administrative approach for reducing unnecessary interpreter costs. OCR notes that under Section 504 and Title II there must be an exception for "good cause" situations when the HI student could not reasonably be expected to know in advance so as to provide timely notice. UCD indicates to OCR that in practice UCD has been very equitable. During 1991-1992 school year, R had 19 late cancellations and two no-shows. Nevertheless, UCD never failed to provide R with an interpreter on the basis that she "no-showed" or "late canceled." OCR finds no evidence in this case that, as implemented, UCD policy regarding suspension of interpreter services for "no-shows" or "late cancels" is inconsistent with 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(d) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.

Failure to attend a mandatory meeting at the beginning of each quarter results in "suspension" of interpreter services until the HI student meets with DRC counselor. At the beginning of each quarter, the HI student is required to attend a mandatory meeting at which s/he is to complete an Academic Accommodation(s) Request Form For Students with Hearing Impairments. After missing the mandatory quarterly meeting, an HI student must make an appointment with the DRC counselor, and even then interpreting services are not guaranteed. OCR finds that mandated student attendance at a meeting at the beginning of each quarter, to set up auxiliary aids for the upcoming quarter, is a reasonable administrative requirement to obtain information about the HI student's new schedule, such information being a necessary prerequisite to providing auxiliary aids to the HI student. OCR notes that there must be an alternative (e.g., make up meeting) for "good cause," for a HI student who timely informs DRC of the desire to avail him/herself of that alternative. In the case of R, OCR found that no auxiliary aid services (e.g., interpreters or stenocaptioning) were provided to her on April 6, 1992 (first day of spring quarter) because R missed the mandatory April 5, 1992 meeting. R did not notify DRC that she would not be attending the April 5th meeting, so the issue of UCD provision of an alternative to the meeting does not, on equitable grounds, arise in this case. OCR finds no evidence in this case that, as implemented, UCD policy regarding mandatory student attendance at the quarterly meeting is inconsistent with 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(d) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.

Failure to attend weekly meeting with counselor is stated to be grounds for suspending interpreter services until HI student contacts counselor. OCR finds that absent a demonstration (not provided to OCR by UCD to date) that each such weekly meeting is necessary to providing the HI student with interpreter services or other necessary auxiliary aid, and the purpose of such meetings cannot be accomplished through a less burdensome method such as telephone calls or delivery of written notices, interruption of interpreter services for failure to attend a weekly meeting with the DRC counselor violates Section 504 and Title II. Such interruption would be a violation even if the HI student, having missed attendance at past weekly meetings, agrees to that condition as a prerequisite to receipt of interpreter services (as was done in the May 4, 1992, agreement R signed). OCR concludes that such an agreement is void as contradictory to the purposes of Section 504 and Title II. In this case, R's interpreter services were never pulled for failure to attend a weekly counselor's meetings. Because UCD policy regarding mandatory student attendance at the weekly meeting was not implemented as to R, OCR is not finding UCD in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(d) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.

Failure to timely sign a new auxiliary services agreement each quarter is grounds for suspension of interpreter services (which are not included in the auxiliary services agreement). OCR finds that UCD may condition provision of necessary auxiliary aids upon the HI student's completion of certain essential documentation, such as the auxiliary services agreement used by UCD to establish the needs of the student for the applicable quarter. However, failure of the student to complete such essential documentation may serve as grounds for interruption of auxiliary services only when the documentation not completed directly pertains to the services interrupted.
In this case, the quarterly auxiliary services agreement in question covered R's anticipated need for notetakers, CAs, and tutors, but did not pertain to provision of sign language interpreter services. OCR finds that R failed to timely sign her auxiliary services agreement for the quarter that began January 1992. When the agreement still had not been signed three weeks into the quarter, UCD suspended interpreter services for R's English class on January 28, 1992. Immediately after class, R came to the DRC at 11:20 a.m. and interpreter services were resumed for classes the rest of the same day. OCR finds that UCD interrupting R's interpreter services for her failure to timely sign an auxiliary services agreement is in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(d) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.160 because the auxiliary aid agreement was unrelated to the services interrupted.

OCR also found that one of the statements in the standard UCD auxiliary services agreement is misleading. Specifically, the statement that "expenditures exceeding agreed budgets are the financial responsibility of the disabled student and will not be paid by UCD" improperly implies that legitimate but unexpected needs for an interpreter that arise during the quarter, but that were not anticipated and provided for in the auxiliary services agreement, are not available from UCD. OCR finds that this statement should be modified to clearly indicate that legitimate program needs of the HI student will be met even if not included in the auxiliary services agreement. For example, if an HI student's classroom teacher offers to meet with him/her for an extra office session or if any other academically related opportunity available to a nondisabled student unexpectedly arises, under 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(d) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.160 UCD has a responsibility to provide the HI student meaningful access even if not in the auxiliary services agreement budget of planned expenses. OCR notes that UCD has stated that to date no HI student has had to pay for an interpreter service because the cost exceeded the amount budgeted in the auxiliary services agreement.

In addition to reviewing the foregoing policies, OCR investigated the shortage of sign language interpreters available to interpret in UCD classrooms. At UCD all classes are team interpreted by two interpreters to provide necessary rest periods. If a class is described as "half-covered" this means that an interpreter was present only one-half of the class time due to either interpreter illness or scheduling conflicts. During the 1991-1992 academic year, complainant's classes were scheduled in advance on three occasions to be half-covered, and on ten occasions to be entirely without interpreters.

OCR finds that absent a showing that, despite diligent efforts to obtain sign language interpreters they could not be obtained, under 34 C.F.R. 104.44(d) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.160, notetakers are not sufficient to provide the HI student meaningful access to the classroom in that they do not enable the HI student to participate in the class in a manner comparable to that offered the nondisabled student. As stated above, under 28 C.F.R. § 160(a), a public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with participants with disabilities are as effective as communications with others. According to 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b), 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. Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(c), in determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, a Public entity shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities. The Department of Justice's interpretive guidance accompanying this Title II Regulation states that "Although in some circumstances a notepad and written materials may be sufficient to permit effective communication, in other circumstances they may not be sufficient. For example, a qualified interpreter may be necessary when the information being communicated is complex, or is exchanged for a lengthy period of time. Generally, factors to be considered in determining whether an interpreter is required include the context in which the communication is taking place, the number of people involved, and the importance of the communication."

In the OCR administrative experience under almost all circumstances (e.g., an exception is an unexpected emergency), a HI student who enrolls in courses at a post secondary educational institution is entitled to more than a fellow student's paraphrased version of the lecture made available after the class is completed. Even a transcript of the lecture, presented after class is completed, is not meaningful access for those HI students who are dependent on sign language interpretation for his/her interactive communication needs. OCR notes that "real time" stenocaptioning (or steno-interpreting) as an auxiliary aid for HI students is a relatively new technology. The appropriateness of steno-interpreting must be determined on a case-by-case basis that takes into account the individualized needs of the HI student, the particular type of subject matter, and the educational setting involved. A critical factor in whether steno-interpreting provides meaningful access to the HI student in a post-secondary, lecture oriented classroom appears to be the degree of the stenocaptioner's skill. Under 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(d) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.160, use of steno-interpreting must be suspended upon a determination that it is not providing meaningful access to the HI student.

OCR finds that during the school year 1991-1992, UCD did not provide sign language interpreters for all of R's classes. However, OCR finds that UCD failure to hire a sufficient number of sign language interpreters to provide adequate coverage of classes taken by its HI students was not a violation of Section 504 and Title II because UCD evidenced a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for such failure to hire. The salary offered by UCD was within the range of fair market value for such position in the UCD locale, and UCD made diligent efforts to recruit for its vacant positions. UCD advertised the interpreter positions at $18 to $21 per hour, or at $19,000 to $29,000 annually. Although of the 20 applicants responding to UCD recruitment efforts, ten applicants were "paper qualified," upon interviewing these ten applicants, none1 were both available and qualified to immediately accept a position with UCD for the spring 1992 quarter. Of those who were qualified but not available immediately, UCD did subsequently hire two when they became available. OCR notes that all of the UCD interpreter positions are currently covered.
In conclusion, OCR finds during the 1991-1992 school year that UCD had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its failure to hire adequate sign language interpreters to cover the classroom needs of its HI students and it offered an array of "second-best" alternatives when signers were unavailable. Therefore, under these circumstances OCR finds that UCD was not in violation of Section 504 or Title II for its failure to provide sign language interpreters for R's classes during school year 1991-1992.

On March 9, 1993, UCD offered OCR written assurance that it would implement a corrective action plan resolving the issues raised in this letter of findings (LOF). In that corrective action plan, UCD assured OCR that by May 1, 1993, it would provide supporting documentation indicating that it fulfilled its agreement to:

I. Create "good cause" exception to policies (1) two no-shows or late cancellations results in suspension of interpreter services, and (2) failure to attend the one meeting at designated time and place at beginning of each quarter to set up auxiliary aids for upcoming quarter results in interpreters not being available when classes begin. Indicate that there is an alternative meeting or procedure for obtaining interpreter services for HI students who for good cause are unable to attend the designated meeting.

II. Provide assurance to OCR that unless particular weekly meeting is necessary to provision of interpreter services and cannot be accomplished through a less burdensome method such as phone calls or delivery of written notices, interpreter services will not be interrupted on account of HI student failing to attend a weekly meeting(s) with DRC counselor (even if HI student has so contracted).

III. Provide assurance to OCR that an auxiliary service will not be interrupted on account of an HI student's failure to take administrative actions (such as signing forms requisite for service) unless the administrative actions the student failed to take were directly related UCD ability to provide the auxiliary service that was suspended.

IV. Either delete the statement in auxiliary services agreement that "expenditures exceeding agreed budgets are the financial responsibility of the disabled student and will not be paid by UCD" or otherwise make clear that legitimate but unexpected needs for an interpreter which arise during the quarter, but which are not anticipated and included in the auxiliary services agreement, will be provided by UCD.

V. Provide an assurance to OCR that in the event of an unexpected inability of an interpreter to be present (e.g., illness), the HI student will have the option of obtaining within a reasonable time either a written transcript of the lecture or an interpreter available for signing the taped lecture, and will also have the additional option of obtaining classroom notes on the day of the lecture for which there was no interpreter.

VI. Provide an assurance to OCR that although an HI student may be asked to take a course at the same time in the same quarter as another HI student, who is currently taking or whom it is anticipated will be taking, that course in the near future, the postponement will not delay the HI student's graduation date nor interrupt the HI student's sequential taking of other classes for which the postponed class is a prerequisite.

OCR is informing the complainant of these findings by concurrent letter and is thereby closing this complaint as of the date of this letter.

This LOF is not intended, nor should it be construed, to cover compliance by UCD with Section 504, Title II and their implementing regulations as to any issue or individual not specifically discussed herein.

OCR accords a complainant, against whom an adverse finding has been made, the right to request reconsideration by OCR. Reconsideration may affect the findings made by OCR. Should the complainant in this case file a timely request, there is a possibility that OCR, in the process of responding to the request, may need to contact you for further information.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related records on request. If OCR receives such a request, it will seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personal information which, if released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

We thank you and your staff for the cooperation and assistance provided to OCR during this investigation including very promptly entering into voluntary compliance negotiations, and providing meaningful remedies based on OCR's anticipated findings. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Charles R. Love, Director, Compliance Division I, at (415) 556-7025.

John E. Palomino
Regional Civil Rights Director

1 Three of the applicants upon interviewing were determined to be not adequate for the job (e.g., experience was limited to high school), three of the applicants did not want the UCD position because the UCD job did not offer the range of interpreting they liked (interpreters often prefer to interpret in the deaf community rather than in an educational setting), and four of the applicants were working at jobs that they could not leave immediately.

contact us: Southwest ADA Center
800-949-4232 or 713-520-0232 v/tty