March 1, 2022
Board of Trustees and the Chancellor
Los Angeles Community College District
via email
Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D.
Board President
David Vela
Vice President
Nichelle Henderson
Second Vice President
Steven F. Veres
Member of the Board
Mike Fong
Member of the Board Andra Hoffman
Member of the Board
Ernest H. Moreno
Member of the Board
Coraima Martinez
Student Trustee
Francisco C. Rodríguez, PhD.
Chancellor
Dear President Buelna, Vice President Vela, Second Vice President Henderson, Chancellor Rodriguez, and Members of the Board of Trustees of the LACCD:
The American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) is a national organization that works to create a world of no limits for people who are blind or have low vision by mobilizing leaders, advancing research, and championing impactful policies and practices. AFB urgently calls on the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) to abandon its plan to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in the Payan v. LACCD litigation.
The proposed petition would challenge the very foundation of disability rights, namely that the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 prohibit unintentional forms of disability discrimination. The petition would be incompatible with LACCD’s professed commitment to the inclusion of people with disabilities and is not necessary to address and resolve the access problems demonstrated by the blind students who brought the case. If the Supreme Court were to agree with LACCD that federal law prohibits only intentional forms of disability discrimination, more than 40 years of hard-fought-for civil rights of people with disabilities would be undone.
In Payan v. LACCD, blind students sued under the ADA and Section 504 because the textbooks, handouts, websites, and other technology they use at school are not accessible to them because they do not work properly with screen-reading technology. The students proved their case, and the judge ordered LACCD to make changes to its technology. The judge specifically ruled that LACCD is not required to do anything “if doing so amounts to an undue financial or administrative burden or would result in the fundamental alteration[.]” This is because the ADA and Section 504 balance the needs of people with disabilities and those of covered entities like LACCD.
AFB has conducted research that vividly shows that inaccessible materials and technology has a detrimental impact on the education of students who are blind, and as I am sure you know, when students cannot access their education, they have a harder time getting a quality, good-paying job in the field of their choice. In Flatten Inaccessibility, a study of the experiences of adults at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, 158 postsecondary students and rehabilitation students reported that their school introduced new technology tools to facilitate accessing the curriculum from home, but only 40% reported the new technologies were accessible. An unpublished survey that AFB conducted in 2021 found that a lack of accessibility had significant impacts on students’ education. In higher education, 75 survey participants reported that their classes moved online and 51 reported moving to a hybrid model, and respondents reported dropping a class (21), taking an incomplete (18), leaving their program (9), or having to file an official complaint because of lack of accessibility (8). Students expressed concerns about the accessibility of online programs, such as learning management platforms, discussion forums, and web-based word processing programs.
In most cases, disability discrimination does not happen because of an intent to hurt people with disabilities. Most discrimination against people with disabilities happens because of how society has been organized and built, and due to a lack of care in including people with disabilities.
People who are blind or have low vision are faced with significant barriers day in and day out. The ADA and Section 504 provide people with disabilities with the essential recourse to challenge these barriers, regardless of what anyone “intended.”
LACCD publicly states that it does not discriminate against people with disabilities and that it complies with the ADA. The Chancellor’s Office sponsors an annual Disability Summit to “share strategies for institutions of higher education to ensure they are providing an inclusive and equitable environment for students and employees with disabilities.” However, these commitments are meaningless if LACCD continues with its plan to gut the ADA and Section 504.
We understand that LACCD has an interest in defending its programs and operations, but LACCD does not need to seek a harmful ruling from the Supreme Court to serve this interest. The trial judge in Payan has already ruled that LACCD retains its defenses under current law and may avoid taking steps that would amount to an undue financial or administrative burden or result in the fundamental alteration of its programs. Additionally, the disability community stands by to offer its support to LACCD in securing resources and implementing common-sense solutions to resolve its access barriers affecting blind students.
Again, we urge you to withdraw any plans to petition the Supreme Court to eliminate key provisions of the ADA and Section 504.
Sincerely,
Kirk Adams
President and CEO
cc: Maria Luisa Veloz, LACCD Legislative and Public Affairs Officer
