ADA Lawsuit Settlement Compels Miami University to Make Digital Content Accessible
Updated: January 24, 2019
An Ohio District Court Judge just published a consent decree on a case that reinforces the growing trend of ADA web accessibility lawsuits in higher education.
Judge Susan J. Dlott’s consent decree on Dudley v. Miami University finalizes the settlement in a years-long disability discrimination lawsuit.
The decree demands that the university take aggressive steps to remediate their digital content to make it accessible to people with disabilities.
The case began in January 2014 when blind student Aleeha Dudley filed a complaint against Miami University, Ohio. Dudley requires the use of speech-to-text software and Braille alternatives to access her course materials, but the university did not adequately accommodate her needs.
The National Federation of the Blind filed a joint complaint shortly thereafter.
The plaintiffs alleged that the university violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Title II of the ADA protects the rights of people with disabilities by requiring state and local entities to provide reasonable accommodations for equal access to public services.
Because Miami University is a state university, it is subject to Title II, and providing timely Braille materials and assistive technology-compatible content would be considered ‘reasonable accommodations’ for a blind student.
Litigation continued into 2015, and in May 2015 the US Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened.
The DOJ emphasized that Miami University needs to make its website, digital course materials, textbooks, and learning management systems accessible to students with vision, hearing, or learning disabilities.
Vanita Gupta, an attorney for the DOJ’s Civil Rights division, issued this statement at the time:
“Students with disabilities continue to encounter an impenetrable glass ceiling of opportunity when schools fail to comply with the ADA”
Principal Deputy Asst. Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division, DOJ
On January 15, 2016, Miami University agreed to settle the case. Since then, the terms of the settlement have been in negotiations, but this consent decree makes them official.
A consent decree does not assign liability to the defendant, but instead outlines the steps they agree to take to remedy the situation.
The decree acknowledges the charges brought against Miami University, but asserts that Miami denies any wrongdoing. It states that Miami “remains committed to providing equal opportunity for the education of qualified individuals with disabilities, and that it has already undertaken many of the requirements of this Consent Decree.”
There are 18 parts to the resolution:
- General Non-Discrimination Obligations
- Web Content Accessibility
- LMS Accessibility
- Textbook and Course Material Accessibility
- Student Organization Website Accessibility
- Inaccessible Digital File Conversion Submission Page
- Accessible Technology Policy
- Accessible Technology Coordinator
- University Accessibility Committee
- Accessible Technology Training
- Accessible Educational Resources Portal
- Accessible IT Procurement Policy
- Web Accessibility Testing
- Hire an Accessible Technology Specialist
- Grievance Process
- Evaluation of Student Disability Services
- Undue Burden and Fundamental Alteration Clause
- Personal Devices and Services
Essentially, the decree outlines all the ways in which the university plans to ensure that web content and services are fully accessible to students with disabilities. It establishes deadlines to meet certain milestones, requirements for testing and auditing web accessibility, and an overall proactive approach to accessible design.
What This Means for Miami University
Miami University agrees to the terms of the decree and will meets its obligations within the specified timeframe — anywhere from 2 to 16 months for a given requirement.
It will continue to report to and cooperate with the Department of Justice to ensure the decree’s enforcement.
What This Means for Higher Education
The resolution of the Dudley v. Miami University lawsuit could foreshadow the outcome of another high-profile web accessibility case in higher education, NAD v. Harvard, MIT.
The NAD v. Harvard, MIT case alleges violations of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act for failing to make Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) content accessible to disabled members of the public. It also cites inadequate accommodations for students, such as use of automatic YouTube captioning for videos used in coursework.
While Harvard and MIT continue to fight their lawsuit, settlements like Dudley v. Miami University provide a mounting precedent for resolutions to web accessibility disputes in education.
Ultimate Guide to Caption and Description Formats for Popular Video Players
Ever wondered what caption and audio description formats you’ll need for your video player? Below we breakdown the most popular video players and their accessibility. On Caption Formats There are a lot of caption formats out there. Caption formats can be categorized…
Who Needs to Step Up to the IT Accessibility Plate? (QUIZ)
Ever heard the saying, “Teamwork makes the dream work?” When it comes to accessibility on campus, that saying embodies how IT accessibility initiatives should be approached. It’s hard to define a single role to take charge of accessibility, especially at an…
YouTube Copyright Rules: Can You Caption Public YouTube Videos?
YouTube is a treasure trove of information, entertainment, and educational video. One of the challenges of using YouTube for education is that most public videos lack accurate closed captions, which are required for accessibility compliance. If you want to add captions to…