ADA Lawsuit Settlement Compels Miami University to Make Digital Content Accessible
Updated: June 3, 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.
How to Handle Live Closed Captioning – and the Challenges
Technological innovation has paved a new way to conduct business, education, and life in general – particularly in a world forced to adapt to virtual substitutes during the pandemic. And most of the time, the technology we use is very helpful! Like…
3 Ways Video Has Changed for the Better
Decades ago, video’s uses were mostly limited to entertaining, informing, and advertising. Today, video has all but replaced classrooms, text books, work travel, and meeting rooms. 2020 brought upon countless changes to the world – and one of the reasons people maintained…
Video and Closed Captioning Trends for 2021
The 2021 State of Captioning report is now available to read in full. In it, you’ll find some of the top video and closed captioning trends for this year. The State of Captioning (SOC) is an annual report by 3Play Media and…