United States v. Board of Trustees for the University of Alabama
908 F.2d 740, 1990 WL 102337 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federally funded universities to provide auxiliary aids to handicapped students to ensure meaningful access to all educational programs, including non-credit courses, without conditioning such aids on the student's financial status. The university must also make reasonable accommodations in its other services, such as transportation, unless doing so would impose an undue financial or administrative burden.
Facts:
- The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), a recipient of federal funding, enrolled approximately 175 handicapped students, including several with significant hearing impairments.
- UAB implemented a policy for 'costly' auxiliary aids like sign-language interpreters, which required students to first seek free services from the state's Vocational Rehabilitation Service.
- If state services were unavailable, UAB's policy directed the student to apply for financial aid (loans, grants) to cover the cost of the interpreter.
- UAB would only provide an interpreter at its own expense as a last resort, after a student demonstrated both financial need and an inability to secure aid from other sources.
- The policy also explicitly excluded students enrolled in non-credit or non-degree courses through its Division of Special Studies from receiving any auxiliary aids from UAB.
- UAB operated an on-campus bus system consisting of five buses, but only one was equipped with a wheelchair lift.
- The single lift-equipped bus operated for only four hours per day, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., based on a survey of handicapped students' class schedules.
- Individuals needing the lift-equipped bus outside of its scheduled hours had to provide 48 hours' advance notice, and none of UAB's seven vans for off-campus trips were accessible to wheelchair users.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) initiated an investigation into UAB's compliance with Section 504 following a complaint from a deaf student in 1979.
- The United States sued the Board of Trustees for the University of Alabama (UAB) in federal district court for violations of the Rehabilitation Act.
- The district court ruled for the United States, finding UAB's auxiliary aids policy, which used a financial needs test and excluded non-degree students, violated Section 504.
- The district court ruled for UAB on a separate issue, finding that its campus transportation system for handicapped students was a reasonable accommodation.
- The district court entered a permanent injunction against UAB's unlawful auxiliary aid policies.
- UAB, as appellant, appealed the injunction and the rulings on its auxiliary aid policies to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
- The United States, as cross-appellant, appealed the district court's ruling that UAB's transportation system was a reasonable accommodation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a university receiving federal funds violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by conditioning the provision of auxiliary aids on a student's financial status, denying such aids to students in non-degree programs, and providing a transportation system that is only partially accessible to mobility-impaired individuals?
Opinions:
Majority - Clark, Circuit Judge
Yes, a university's policy violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act if it conditions auxiliary aids on financial need, excludes non-degree students, or provides an inequitable transportation service, as these actions fail to provide the meaningful access and reasonable accommodation required by law. First, regarding the auxiliary aids policy, the court deferred to the Department of Education's interpretation of its regulations, which places the ultimate burden of providing aids on the university to ensure meaningful access. UAB's policy unlawfully shifts this burden to the student. Citing Alexander v. Choate, the court distinguished this from an impermissible 'affirmative action' requirement by framing it as a 'reasonable' modification necessary for access, as a deaf student without an interpreter is effectively denied participation. Second, the court held that the regulations apply to all 'postsecondary education programs and activities,' not just degree-granting programs, a conclusion reinforced by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. Therefore, excluding students in Special Studies programs was a violation. Finally, the court reversed the district court's finding on the bus system, holding that a service available for only 4 of 12 operating hours and requiring 48-hour notice is not 'equal to' or 'as effective as' the service provided to non-handicapped persons. The court determined that the cost of installing additional lifts would not constitute an 'undue financial burden' on UAB, making the existing system an unreasonable accommodation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of a university's obligations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, establishing that 'meaningful access' requires more than mere non-discrimination. By affirming that universities cannot use a student's financial status as a pretext for denying necessary accommodations like interpreters, the court strengthened protections for disabled students. The ruling reinforces the principle of agency deference under Chevron, giving substantial weight to the Department of Education's regulations. Furthermore, by defining what constitutes a 'reasonable accommodation' versus an 'undue financial burden' in the context of transportation, the case provides a tangible framework for analyzing the adequacy of university services, impacting how educational institutions budget for and implement disability access across all their programs and activities.
