BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION. The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section (“DOJ”), has completed the above-referenced investigation and compliance review of the handling by the University of Montana – Missoula (“University”) of allegations of sexual assault and harassment under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”) and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c, et seq. (“Title IV”). The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) has joined DOJ in the Title IX compliance review.1 Based on DOJ’s investigation and compliance review, DOJ and OCR (jointly referred to as the “United States”) identified concerns regarding the University’s handling of sex-based harassment and its implementation of Title IX’s regulatory requirements. The United States recognizes that, prior to and during the course of the investigation, the University appointed a Title IX Coordinator, adopted policies and procedures regarding sex-based harassment, responded to complaints, and developed and provided training to employees and students. By taking these and other steps to address sex-based harassment, the University has demonstrated its commitment to meeting its obligations under Title IX and Title IV. Through this Resolution Agreement, the University has indicated its willingness to further implement actions that remedy the United States’ concerns identified in the attached Letter of Findings and to ensure the University’s compliance with Title IX and Title IV.
BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION. A. The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the regulations that implement those statutes at 34 C.F.R. Part 104 and 28 C.F.R. Part 35. These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education and by public entities. The University receives federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education, is a public entity, and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of these laws.
B. OCR received a Complaint of disability discrimination against the University of Montana on May 4, 2012 (OCR Reference No. 10122118). The Complaint alleged that the University is discriminating against students with disabilities by using inaccessible electronic and information technology, including: inaccessible class assignments and materials on the learning management system, Moodle; inaccessible live chat and discussion board functions in the learning management system, Moodle; inaccessible documents that are scanned images on webpages and websites; inaccessible videos in Flash format, that are not captioned; inaccessible library database materials; inaccessible course registration through a website, Cyber Bear; and inaccessible classroom clickers.
BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION. The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), has completed its investigation into a complaint (the “Complaint”) filed against the Tehachapi Unified School District (the “District”) alleging severe and pervasive peer-on-peer harassment of a student in the District (the “Student”). More specifically, OCR investigated whether the Student was subject to sexual and gender-based harassment by his peers while attending school at the Xxxxxxxx Middle School (the “School”), and whether the District failed to take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the harassment, prevent the harassment from recurring, address the effects of the harassment, and eliminate any hostile environment resulting from the harassment. The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (“DOJ”) has joined OCR in the complaint resolution process. The Complaint followed the Student’s suicide attempt on September 19, 2010, which led to his death on September 27, 2010. Based on OCR’s investigation, OCR and DOJ (jointly referred to as the “United States”) have concluded that the District has violated the federal prohibitions against sex-based harassment under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”) and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000c, et seq. (“Title IV”).1 More specifically, the Student suffered sexual and gender-based harassment by his peers, including harassment based on his nonconformity with gender stereotypes;2 the harassment was sufficiently severe, pervasive, and persistent to interfere with and limit his ability to participate in and benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by the District;3 the District had notice of the harassment; and the District did not adequately investigate or respond appropriately as it is required to do by federal law. 1 In addition to sexual and gender-based harassment, including harassment based on nonconformity with gender stereotypes, the conduct toward the Student included harassment based on his sexual orientation, which may constitute a violation of California state law prohibitions on discrimination and harassment based on gender, sexual orientation, and other categories. See Cal. Ed. Code §§ 200-234.3. While OCR and the DOJ do not enforce state laws, the District is obligated to comply with both federal and state laws. 2 Throughout this Agreement, the phrase “gender stereotypes” refers to stereotypical notions of masculinity and femininity.
BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION. Title II of the ADA and its implementing regulation require public entities to make their programs, services, and activities accessible to qualified individuals with disabilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130, 35.160.
BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION. 1. Greenwich is the public entity responsible for the Xxxxx Xxxxxx (“Xxxxxx”). 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
2. The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, a component of the United States Department of Justice (“United States”), opened an investigation regarding the accessibility of the Marinas facilities, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§12131-12134, as amended. The United States initiated the investigation upon receipt of a complaint from an individual with a disability who alleged that none of the Marinas were accessible to individuals with mobility disabilities.
3. The United States is authorized to investigate alleged violations of Title II of the ADA, conduct compliance reviews of public entities, where appropriate, attempt informal resolution, and if informal resolution is not achieved and a violation found, issue a Letter of Findings to the public entity. 28 C.F.R. § 35.172. If the United States fails to secure voluntary compliance, the Attorney General is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 12133 to bring a civil action enforcing Title II of the ADA.
4. Title II of the ADA bars discrimination against persons with disabilities by public entities, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and establishes that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, because a public entity’s facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by a public entity.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.149
5. The United States reviewed information and records provided by Greenwich regarding the Marinas, which indicated that the Marinas have no designated accessible boat slips and no accessible routes to boat slips. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(b)(2)(i). Pursuant to the information and records provided by Greenwich, each of the Marinas was initially designed and constructed prior to January 26, 1992, and each of the Marinas has been altered since that date as defined in 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b). Pursuant to the ADA, all remedies to inaccessible features and elements of the marina facilities will conform with the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, 28 C.F.R. § 35.104, (“2010 Standards”).
BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION. 1. ProHealth is the owner/operator of ProHealth Physicians of West Hartford (the “Quaker Lane Office”) located at 000 Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx, Xxxx Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxxx.
2. The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, a component of the United States Department of Justice (“United States”), opened an investigation of ProHealth pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189, as amended. The United States initiated its investigation upon the receipt of a complaint from an individual regarding lack of accessibility at the Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx xx XxxXxxxxx.
0. Xxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx is authorized to investigate alleged violations of Title III of the ADA. Moreover, the United States is authorized, where appropriate, to use alternative means of dispute resolution, including settlement negotiations to resolve disputes. If resolution is not achieved, the United States may bring a civil action in federal court in any case where the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a pattern or practice of discrimination exists or where the case raises an issue of general public importance. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188(b), 12212; 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.502, 36.503, 36.506.
4. Title III of the ADA mandates that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).
5. The Quaker Lane Office is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of Title III because it is a “professional office of a health care provider.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(F). ProHealth, as the owner and operator of the Quaker Lane Office, is a public accommodation subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA. 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.
6. The Quaker Lane Office was constructed for first occupancy after January 26, 1993, and is new construction within the meaning of 28 C.F.R. § 36.401. Newly constructed facilities must comply with the new construction standards of the ADA, unless structurally impracticable. 42 U.S.C. § 12183; 28 C.F.R. § 36.401(c). The building originally was constructed as two separate office suites with no interior connection. Alterations to the exterior of the facility include parking lot restriping in 2016 and sidewalk paving and regrading in 2013 and 2015. A platform ...
BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION. Title II of the ADA and its implementing regulation require public entities to make their programs, services, and activities accessible to qualified individuals with disabilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130, 35.160. Under Title II and its implementing regulation, a public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not: afford qualified individuals with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded to others; provide a qualified individual with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others; or otherwise limit such individuals in the enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving the aid, benefit, or service. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1). Under Title II and its implementing regulation, a public entity shall maintain in operable working condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required by the ADA to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 35.133. Under Title II and its implementing regulation, a public entity shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford qualified individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity of a public entity. In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and services must be provided in accessible formats in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability. 28 C.F.R.§ 35.
BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION. The United States Department of Justice, of which the United States Attorney's Office is a component, is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Subpart E, to investigate the allegations of the complaint in this matter to determine HealthSource Saginaw's compliance with title III of the ADA. Complainant is an individual with a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12102; 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. HealthSource Saginaw is a non-profit hospital, which owns and operates a behavioral medical center, nursing facility, rehabilitation center, and outpatient care clinics located in Saginaw Township, Michigan. HealthSource Saginaw is a "public accommodation" within the meaning of title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(F), and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. § 36.
BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION. HM LLC is the owner/operator of The Millworks located at 000 Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102.
BACKGROUND AND JURISDICTION. 1. The Parties to this Settlement Agreement are the United States and Central DuPage Hospital (the "Hospital").
2. The Hospital is located at 00 Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxx in Winfield, Illinois, in the Northern District of Illinois.
3. This matter was initiated by a complaint filed with the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois against the Hospital. The complaint was investigated by the United States Attorney's Office under the authority granted by Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA" or "the Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188(b)(1)(A)(i).
4. The United States alleges that the Hospital discriminated against the complainant, who is deaf, by failing to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services necessary for effective communication. Specifically, the United States alleges that the Hospital violated the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189, and the U.S. Department of Justice's implementing regulation, 28 C.F .R. Part 36, when the complainant was not provided with a sign language interpreter, despite her repeated requests, during the time complainant spent in the crisis stabilization unit of the Hospital from September 23 -28, 2005. The Hospital denies these allegations.
5. The Hospital is a "public accommodation" as defined in section 301(7)(e) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 36.104, because it is a private entity that owns, operates, leases or leases to a place of public accommodation, specifically, a hospital. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(A)(F).
6. Xxx XXX, 00 X.X.X. § 00000(x), prohibits a public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations by a place of public accommodation. 28 C.F.R. § 36.201(a).
7. On the basis of its investigation, the United States Attorney's Office has determined that the complainant was denied appropriate services necessary for effective communication, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act. The Hospital fully cooperated in the United States' Attorney's Office investigation in this matter and it expressly denies it has violated the ADA. This Agreement shall not be construed as an admission of liability by the Hospital.
8. The Parties desire to settle this matter without resorting to litigation and have, therefore, entered into this Settlement Agreement. In consideration of the terms of this Settlement Agreement, the Unite...
