1. AHEAD National Conference July 19 2017
Orlando, Florida
Eileen Connell Berger, MS Ed., Harvard Graduate School of Education
Neal E. Lipsitz, Ph.D., College of the Holy Cross
Michael Berger Ph.D, Simmons College

2. "Analysis of Higher Education Disability Discrimination Cases using Novel Conceptual Framework and Case Study Methodology"
Eileen Connell Berger, MS Ed., Harvard Graduate School of Education
Neal E. Lipsitz, Ph.D., College of the Holy Cross
Michael Berger Ph.D., Simmons College

3. Why do SWD require a special framework for assessment?
Extraordinary issues of access are paramount in SWD college experience because of physical, cognitive, and sensory functional limitations that affect:
Academic performance
Social integration
Learning new skills and strategies
Traditional metrics are often based on “post experience” evaluations;
Dropout rates
Satisfaction surveys
Exit interviews
Lawsuits

4. Both formative and summative assessments are of value for SWD
Formative: occurs throughout the student’s tenure can be used for midcourse adjustments and modifications of accommodations
Formative: facilitates the participation of relevant stakeholders in the evaluation of their responsibilities (too much, not enough?)
Summative: analysis can reveal structural weaknesses, gaps in coverage, duplication and inefficiencies

5. Stakeholder Concerns and Desired Outcomes
What would faculty be concerned about?
What would the student’s main concerns and goals?
What would be the disability provider’s major goals?
What would an administrative dean be concerned about?
What would the parents/guardian (especially for an undergraduate) be concerned about?

6. The Framework
We propose a framework based on various “lenses” through which different stakeholders involved in the student’s success view their role in the student’s college experience.
Stakeholder roles and responsibilities have been identified for the optimum efficient and effective delivery of services and student success.
This framework is used as the basis for the analysis of a case study, with the goal of analyzing strengths and weaknesses of disability services delivery and institutional response, and degree of student success.
We are proposing a conceptual framework that can inform the educational experience of the SWD. These involve the various stakeholders that shape the educational experience – the student, faculty, administration, access & disability provider, and parents. But each of these stakeholders view the educational experience through different “lenses” which shape their expectations and their assessments. The stakeholders and their “lenses” form the framework for viewing the educational experience.

7. Grabin v. Marymount Manhattan College, A Case of Insufficient Accommodations
United States District Court Southern District of New York 12 Civ.3591 (KPF) Opinion and Order June 10, 2014
Heather Grabin initiated this action in May 2012 alleging that defendant, Marymount College discriminated against her on the basis of disability, in violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 28 U.S.C. 794.
She contends the school discriminatorily failed to accommodate her disability after she missed several classes in the fall 2010 web design course due to various hospitalizations and illnesses.
Marymount moved for summary judgment arguing she is not disabled, it was unaware of her disability and that it did not fail to accommodate her.
Reference: “Grabin et al v. Marymount Manhattan College, No.1:2012cv Document 73 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)” law.justia.com

8. Quinnipiac University Settlement with DOJ Students with Psychological Disabilities
This case is about imposition of mandatory medical leaves.
It highlights issues around psychological disabilities and risks related to rigid policies.
The complainant alleged that Quinnipiac removed her after she sought help from university counseling and denied a tuition refund request.
The US Department of Justice settled the case with Quinnipiac University on January 12, 2015.
Reference: department-settles-americans-disabilties-act-case- quinnipiac-university
Complainant alleged that Quinnipiac failed to make necessary reasonable modifications to its policies, practices, and procedures when it placed the Complainant on a mandatory medical leave of absence from Quinnipiac University because of the student’s depression without first considering options for the student’s continued enrollment.
The Complainant had been diagnosed with depression.  This mental impairment substantially limits the Complainant’s major life activities of learning, concentrating, and thinking and qualifies her as having a disability.
Quinnipiac failed to consider modifying its mandatory medical leave policy to permit the Complainant to complete her course work while living off campus by attending classes either online or in person.
Quinnipiac agreed to pay $17,000 to the Complainant to compensate her for the harm she endured (including but not limited to, emotional distress, pain and suffering, and other consequential injury) as a result of the University’s actions.
Quinnipiac also agreed to pay $15, on behalf of the Complainant to compensate her for the student loan she obtained to pay tuition to Quinnipiac.

9. USA for Dudley v. Miami University (2015) Accessible Technology
Aleeha Dudley - a blind student pursuing a degree in Zoology alleging the University discriminated against her on the basis of disability.
She claimed the University deliberately failed to make necessary modifications by:
Failing to provide textbooks, course management software compatible with access technology and course materials in accessible formats, including Braille.
Tactile graphics to represent visual components of course materials
Purchased and deployed inaccessible course management and assignment software
Failed to take multiple steps to ensure she had the full benefit of the educational experience.
Reference: Justice Department Moves to Intervene in Disability Discrimination ...
The University uses technologies in its curricular and co-curricular programs events, services and activities that are inaccessible to qualified individuals with disabilities including current and former students who have vision, hearing, or learning disabilities and harmed current and former students by denying them an equal opportunity to benefit from the aids, benefits and services that are provided to others.

10. Conclusions
Students were not included or informed on a continuous basis about their accommodations. This created a perception of suspiciousness and bias in arranging accommodations in the view of the student.
Dissonant and conflicting responses to the student requests were confusing. A point person or more interactive transparent process would alleviate some feelings of bias or decision making based on disability.
Lack of communication, miscommunications, ignorance of roles and responsibilities and lack of coordinated and inclusive efforts are a recipe for student failure and institutional risk for litigation
Lack of deliberative process among stakeholders including legal knowledge, compliance and inclusion policy and practice.
Failure to include the student in the process resulted in distrust, frustration, a feeling of voicelessness and perception of bias because of disability.
Training and assessment of service models and collaborative university resources were mandated in every case by the courts. Some cases revealed a culture of miscommunications, indifference to legitimate needs, irresponsible and biased attitudes. Need for autonomy of DS, highly knowledgeable and experienced personnel were needed. Technology and DS support were understaffed and under prepared for providing resources.
Framework is an excellent tool for training and assessment for all stakeholders.

11. Contact Information
Eileen Connell Berger, MS Ed., Harvard Graduate School of Education
Neal E. Lipsitz, Ph.D., College of the Holy Cross
Michael Berger Ph.D., Simmons College