The OCR Letter of Findings has a lot of clarity in it, definitely worth a read through for (1) resolutions that may not be as helpful as we would wish (2) addresses disability intimidation.
Significant assistance means that as long as the SD is providing direct or indirect significant assistance it must not do so to an organization (entity, so forth and so on) perpetuating discrimination. The resolution is for the SD to either make sure the organization is no longer engaging in discriminatory practices
or end its significant assistance to the organization.
Which brings us to the intimidating language used by the school in resolving its significant assistance.
Although the complainant has not alleged to OCR that the District attempted to intimidate her in the matter of her request to the District for services for A., OCR had a concern about certain correspondence from the District to the complainant.
In a letter of October 22, 1992, to the District the complainant asserted that she would take any action necessary to resolve the matter of her request for a modification for her son so that he could participate in the Club program. In its letter of response dated October 26, 1992, the District stated, " . . . we would hope that you'd provide a more supportive attitude to the efforts already made by the staff at College Park to accommodate your son. . . . " and "It is my sincere hope that your action will not jeopardize the availability of the PTA sponsored program that benefits many children both handicapped and nonhandicapped."
OCR believes that the language used by the District in its letter of October 26, 1992 is the type of response that may intimidate a parent requesting services for a child with disabilities and ultimately deter a parent from seeking services to which his or her child may be entitled. Intimidatory actions are prohibited by Section 504 and Title II. Although OCR makes no finding as to whether intimidation occurred in this case, it cautions the District against the use of such language. An appropriate response is to set forth the District position and provide notice of the District grievance procedures for complaints of discrimination and/or due process procedures for resolution of free appropriate public education issues.
Awesome sauce, right? Yet the resolution may not be as great because the school can opt to meet the requirement of no longer rendering significant assistance which leaves the OCR out of the equation. Note OCR's use of "reasonable" modifications, although they further cite undue burden and fundamental nature.
During discussions on April 15, 1993, OCR informed District representatives of its anticipated findings and discussed voluntary settlement through a corrective action plan. On April 16, 1993, OCR received a remedial plan in which the District agreed to adopt and implement a policy whereby the District will not provide significant assistance to any agency, organization, or individual that discriminates on the basis of disability. The District also agreed to provide notice of this policy to agencies, organizations, and individuals to which it provides significant assistance, and will request that any such agency, organization, or individual (a) provide qualified individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate, and (b) reasonably modify their programs, to include providing supplementary services and aids as necessary for individuals with disabilities to effectively participate without increased cost to the individuals with disabilities.
Additionally, the District will advise the PTA of the PTA's obligation to provide reasonable modification and services that are medically necessary for the complainant's son to participate in the PTA Sunshine Club at College Park Elementary School. If the PTA refuses to provide the services, the District will not continue to provide assistance to the PTA unless the PTA can demonstrate that providing the services would result in a fundamental change in the program or an undue burden on the PTA.
What this means to us, I think, is that there are two ways in which we would approach OCR, assuming the SD is providing significant assistance
1. PTA/PTO or other organization is engaging in a practice that bars full access to an activity or club that student wants to participate in.
2. PTA/PTO is violating a standing accommodation in student's 504 but student is not interested in club or otherwise qualified to join (like 5th graders reading club snacking on nuts in a nut free K room).
The arguments on violation take a slightly different flavor in each scenario, as would unfavorable resolutions by SD such as trying to remove an individual accommodation like nut free room even if a student is not actively barred from participation. In either case the school can seemingly end its responsibilities by ending its assistance or ending the violated accommodation--
and that's where it gets tricky because in attempting to remove an accommodation I think at that point the school itself is engaging in 504 violation instead of indirectly assisting a private group.Say the school chooses to end its significant assistance, does that mean as long as they charge the PTA money for room rental they can actively bar a student from access? I think they'd still have a problem there because it's happening at a public entity. Whether at that point the complaint is lodged
and picked up by USDOEOCR or USDOJCRD might be debatable. Private group at public entity related to school students leans towards USDOE, but say you take up the group itself either at PTA headquarters (the national organization) or the PTO which is more of an individual local group rather than chapter of a national. That might be more USDOJ.
Whatever the case you can't have the same complaint lodged at more than one Department's OCR or CRD. It'll just bog down your case as you have to drop the complaint down to one instance, or the Departments choose in your stead. Obviously for a school that is not a
recipient of Department
Federal financial assistance as defined previously that crosses USDOEOCR off the list.
It would also affect the determination of
significant assistance in the case of a school that may receive some program money or personnel from DOE but their buildings may be privately owned in which case if they let the PTA use the buildings and property which the private school actually owns, even if a 504 is in effect I'm not sure how much influence that over a public accommodation's ability to indirectly assist and not be held directly responsible.
Adding Title II for further recourse and responsibilities of public entities but too tired right now to follow up.
How do Section 504 and Title II differ?
The main difference between the two laws is that one applies to the recipients of grants from the federal government (Section 504) and the other applies only to public entities (Title II). A school or college may be both a recipient of Federal funds from the US Department of Education and also a public entity. In such cases, the institution is covered by both laws.
edited to change OCR or CRD in reference to USDOJ. Added reference to Title II.
Topic: PTA / PTO Parent Teacher Org's (Read 10400 times)
