Transcription
UNITED STATES D EPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, REGIO N IV61 F ORS YT H ST. , SOUT HWE ST, SUIT E 19 T10AT LANT A, GA 30303 -8927REGIONALABAMAFLORIDAGEORGIATENNESSEEJune 26, 2020XXXXXXXXXXRasmussen CollegeOcala Campus4775 SW 46th CourtOcala, Florida 34474Re: OCR Docket No. 04-20-2108Dear XXXXX:The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), has completed itsinvestigation of the above-referenced complaint filed against Rasmussen College (College), onJanuary 3, 2020, alleging discrimination on the bases of disability and race. Specifically, theComplainant alleged that he was treated differently than other students enrolled in the School ofNursing during the fall of 2019 on the bases of disability and race when staff members deniedtwo appeals he filed requesting to retake an exam for which he received his lowest test grade inDecember 2019. The Complainant asserted that one student without a disability was allowed toretake an exam and he was sure that other students in the class did not pass all exams but passedthe course, so he believes they were allowed to retake exams.OCR is responsible for enforcing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing regulation, 34 C.F.R. Part 104, which prohibit discriminationon the basis of disability by recipients of Federal Financial Assistance (FFA) from theDepartment. OCR also enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. §§2000d et seq., and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. Part 100, which prohibitdiscrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receivingFFA from the Department. As a recipient of FFA, the College is subject to Section 504 and TitleVI.OCR investigated the following legal issues:1. Whether College treated the Complainant differently than students withoutdisabilities by denying him the opportunity to retake an exam in which he receivedhis lowest grade, in noncompliance with the Section 504 implementing regulationsat 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.4 and 104.43(a); andThe Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitivenessby fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.www.ed.gov
OCR Complaint #04-20-2108Page 2 of 102. Whether College treated the Complainant differently on the basis of race bydenying him the opportunity to retake an exam in which he received his lowestgrade, in noncompliance with the Title VI implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §100.3.During the investigation, OCR reviewed documents provided by the College, including theComplainant’s academic records and appeals documents, and data regarding other appeals bystudents in the College’s School of Nursing. OCR also interviewed the Complainant, theCollege’s Campus Accommodations Coordinator, an Instructor at the School of Nursing, theDean of Nursing, and the Appeals Committee Chair.Prior to the conclusion of the investigation, the College offered to voluntarily resolve Issue 1.OCR’s Case Processing Manual (CPM) at § 302 states that allegations under investigation maybe resolved at any time when, prior to the point when the Regional Office issues a finaldetermination under CPM § 303, the recipient expresses an interest in resolving the allegationsand OCR determines that it is appropriate to resolve them because OCR’s investigation hasidentified issues that can be addressed through a resolution agreement.After carefully considering all of the information obtained during the investigation, OCR hasfound insufficient evidence of a violation of Title VI with regard to Issue 2. The factual andlegal bases of OCR’s determination are set forth below.Legal StandardsDisabilityThe Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(a) provide that no qualified individual with adisability shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjectedto discrimination under the College’s programs or activities on the basis of disability.The Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.43(a) states that no qualified student with adisability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied thebenefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any academic, research,occupational training, housing, health insurance, counseling, financial aid, physical education,athletics, recreation, transportation, other extracurricular, or other postsecondary education aid,benefits, or services.RaceThe Title VI implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) provides that no person in theUnited States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin be excluded fromparticipation in, be denied the benefits of or be otherwise subject to discrimination under anyprogram that receives FFA from the Department. The Title VI implementing regulation at 34C.F.R. 100.3(b)(vi) states that a recipient of FFA may not, directly or through contractual orother arrangements, on the ground of race, color or national origin, deny an individual the
OCR Complaint #04-20-2108Page 3 of 10opportunity to participate in a program through the provision of services or otherwise or affordhim an opportunity to do so which is different from that afforded others under the program.Absent direct evidence of discriminatory intent, OCR may rely upon indicia of discriminatoryintent, such as evidence of different treatment or a recipient’s failure to follow its policies orprocedures. OCR will infer discriminatory intent if a recipient has treated similarly situatedindividuals differently and there is no legitimate, non-pretextual justification for that differenttreatment.FactsBackgroundThe Complainant was enrolled in the College’s School of Nursing at its Ocala, Florida campusfrom October 1, 2018 through January 8, 2020. The Complainant did not register with theCollege as a student with a disability and did not receive academic adjustments. TheComplainant informed OCR that he did not know whether the College had an office thatprovided services for students with disabilities.The Complainant was enrolled in a Mental Health Nursing class during the fall quarter of 2019.In this course, students were required to take four exams: Exam 1, Exam 2, Exam 3, and a FinalExam. In order to pass the course, students were required to score a total of 78 percent on thefour exams. Each of the exams were equally weighted.The Instructor for the Mental Health Nursing Course (Instructor) reported to OCR that theComplainant took Exam 1 on October 17, 2019 and received the grade of 66 percent. OnOctober 29, 2019, the Instructor then met with the Complainant and discussed the results of thefirst exam. During this meeting, the Complainant informed the Instructor that he was beingtreated for depression. He stated that his medications had been adjusted, and that he was gettingused to the new medications. The Instructor then talked with him and helped him develop anAcademic Success Plan for the next exam.On November 7, 2019, the Complainant took Exam 2 and scored 74 percent. On November 12,2019, the Instructor met with the Complainant again and discussed the results of the secondexam. The Instructor told the Complainant that his current exam average was 70 percent, whichwas eight points below the threshold of 78 percent to pass the class, and that he would need theequivalent of at least an 86 on the next two exams in order to pass. She also told him that if hewould like to drop the course without academic penalty, he would need to do so before thewithdrawal deadline of November 14, 2019. The Complainant responded that he did not want todrop the course and had made the decision to move forward with his best effort rather thanwithdraw. The Instructor stated she does not recall the Complainant discussing that he haddepression during this meeting. However, she recalled him stating that he was working andneeded to focus more on studying. The Instructor also provided him with recommendations onhow he could improve his academic performance.
OCR Complaint #04-20-2108Page 4 of 10On December 4, 2019, the Complainant took Exam 3 and received the grade of 82 percent. OnDecember 10, 2019, the Complainant took the Final Exam and scored 89 percent. Therefore,his overall total exam score was 77 percent and he received the grade of “F” in the class.Pursuant to the School of Nursing’s policies, if a student fails two courses, the student isinvoluntarily withdrawn. The Complainant had previously failed another course in the Schoolof Nursing and was therefore withdrawn from the nursing program on January 8, 2020.1Appeals ProcessThe College’s Academic Appeals and Grievance Policy (Appeals Policy) provides that if astudent wishes to retake an exam, the student may appeal under the following three-tieredappeals process:First tier:Second tier:Third tier:Student appeals to instructor for final grade appeal.Student unsatisfied with instructor’s determination, has the right toescalate the appeal to the academic dean or dean of nursing.Student unsatisfied with academic dean or dean of nursing’sdetermination, Student has the right to escalate the appeal to the College’sacademic appeal committee.On December 13, 2019, the Complainant appealed to retake Exam 1 or Exam 2 under the firsttier of the Appeals Policy.2 The Instructor reported to OCR that she reviewed the appeal. In theappeal letter, the Complainant stated that he had been diagnosed with depression on September6, 2019, and that he believed medications he was taking affected his test score average. TheInstructor noted that the Complainant was notified that his exam average was 70 percent duringthe week when he could have opted to drop the course without academic penalty, but that hedecided to go forward. She also noted that she had worked with the Complainant in developingan Academic Success Plan. She stated that the Complainant tried to improve his grade, but hisfinal total exam grade average was 77 percent, which did not meet the 78 percent testingbenchmark. Because the Complainant did not meet this standard, she denied the appeal.On December 23, 2019, the Complainant appealed to retake Exam 1 under the second tier of theAppeals Policy. The Complainant stated in the second-tier appeal, “At the start of the Fallquarter, I experienced depression and was prescribed antidepressants. During the first exam,there were changes in my medication which could have possibly affected my thinking. Retainingimportant information from lecture and readings was hard because if felt as if I could notcomprehend.” The Dean of Nursing reported to OCR that she reviewed the appeal. She notedthat the Instructor told the Complainant that his exam average was 70 percent during the week1The syllabus for the Mental Health Nursing course states that in order to pass the course, students are required toachieve an overall total exam score average at or above a threshold of 78 percent for all exams taken within thecourse. It further states that neither the threshold calculation nor the individual exam percentages will be roundedup, and that for example, a total exam score of 77.9 percent equals 77 percent. The syllabus also provides that thefour exams in the course were equally weighted. The scores on the Complainant’s four exams were 66, 74, 82, and89 percent, for a total of 77.75 percent. However, in accordance with the course requirements on the syllabus, thetotal exam score was not rounded up to a 78 percent.2The Complainant also submitted a subsequent letter to the Instructor dated December 14, 2019 stating that hewould like to retake the exam on which he received the lowest score, which was Exam 1.
OCR Complaint #04-20-2108Page 5 of 10when he could have dropped the course without academic penalty and that he chose not to do so.She also noted that the Complainant had received academic support from the Instructor, and thatthey had developed an Academic Success Plan. She confirmed that the Complainant’s totalexam grade average was 77 percent and that he failed to meet the required standard of 78 percenton all exams. Therefore, she denied the appeal.On January 9, 2020, the Complainant appealed to retake Exam 1 under the third tier of theAppeals Policy. The Appeals Committee Chair reported to OCR that the College’s AcademicAppeals Committee (Committee) convened in January 2020 and reviewed the Complainant’sappeal.3 In reviewing the appeal documents, the Committee members noted that although theComplainant disclosed to his Instructor that he had depression, he was not registered with theCollege as a student with a disability and was not receiving academic adjustments. TheCommittee also noted that the Instructor told the Complainant that his exam average was 70percent during the week when he could have dropped the course without academic penalty, andhe chose to go forward. The Committee also found that the Instructor had provided theComplainant with academic support and had developed an Academic Success Plan. TheCommittee reviewed the Complainant’s exam scores and confirmed that his total exam gradeaverage was 77 percent, which did not meet the requirement of 78 percent. The Committee thendenied the Complainant’s appeal.4OCR reviewed documents provided by the College regarding the Complainant’s academicappeals. These documents confirm that on December 12, 2019, the Complainant filed an appealwith his Instructor under the first tier of the appeals process. In the appeal letter, he requested toretake Exam 1 or Exam 2, stating that he had been “Moderately Depressed” and that usingmedications had affected his test score average. In this letter, he did not state that he had adisability, nor did he request academic adjustments. On December 14, 2019, the Complainantfiled a supplemental appeal letter amending his request to take only his lowest exam grade. Healso confirmed that after failing the first two exams, the Instructor asked if he wanted to drop thecourse or continue and attempt to score 86 percent on the next two exams. He stated that hisresponse to the Instructor was, “Yes I will attempt to finish the course.” The documents alsoreflect that an Academic Success Plan was developed for the Complainant on October 29, 2019,which was updated on November 12, 2019 and December 12, 2019. Correspondence from theInstructor acknowledges that the Complainant stated he was struggling with depression as hismedications were being adjusted, but that after Exam 2, he decided to continue with the course.5The letter also states that the Complainant’s final score was below the required 78 percentoverall test average, and that she was unable to grant his appeal request.The appeals documents also confirm that on December 23, 2019, the Complainant filed anotherappeal with the Dean of Nursing under the second tier of the appeals process. In that appeal3The Committee convened on an unknown date between January 9 and 22, 2020.The Committee that reviewed the Complainant’s appeal was comprised of the Co-Chair and four other Committeemembers. A quorum of five Committee members is required for the vote; five Committee members convened andvoted to deny the Complainant’s appeal.5The Instructor reported to OCR that she issued this letter on December 20, 2019.4
OCR Complaint #04-20-2108Page 6 of 10letter, he asked to retake Exam 1, stating again that he had been “Moderately Depressed” andthat using medications had affected his test score average.The appeals documents also show that on January 9, 2020, the Complainant filed an additionalappeal with the Appeals Committee under the third tier of the appeals process. In that appealletter, the Complainant asked to retake Exam 1 and stated that he had depression. He also statedthat he was a student with a disability and was discriminated against on that basis when his twoprior appeals were denied.Other Student AppealsThe Instructor reported to OCR that she received appeals from two other students (Students 1and 2) to retake exams during the fall quarter of 2019. Students 1 and 2 were also enrolled in theMental Health Nursing course, but in a different section than the Complainant. Students 1 and 2are African American and do not have reported disabilities. Both students also received a totalexam score of 77 percent, which did not meet the requirement of 78 percent. The Instructorstated that Student 1 requested to retake an exam due to the personal hardship of caring for afamily member. However, the Instructor had discussed Student 1’s academic performance withher during the week she could withdraw without academic penalty, and Student 1 decided to goforward. Therefore, Student 1’s appeal was denied. The Instructor stated that Student 2requested to retake an exam due to personal illness at the time of the exam. However, Student 2did not inform the instructor of the illness prior to failing the course. Therefore, Student 2’sappeal was also denied. Notes in the data received from the College regarding these two appealsreflect this information.The Dean of Nursing reported to OCR that Student 1 filed an additional appeal under the secondtier of the Appeals Policy, and Student 2 did not file an additional appeal. The Dean of Nursingstated that she reviewed and denied Student 1’s appeal for the same reasons stated above.Appeal notes from the College reflect this information. The Dean of Nursing also reviewed fiveother student appeals from the School of Nursing at the Ocala, Florida campus during the fall2019 quarter (Students 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). Of those seven students, none of them had reporteddisabilities. Students 3’s reported race was “two or more races,” Students 4 and 5 were AfricanAmerican, Student 6 was White, and Student 7 was Asian. The Dean of Nursing denied all ofthese appeals. She explained that she denied them because each of these students failed to meetthe 78 percent total exam score required to pass. Additionally, she stated that both Student 3(two or more races) and Student 5 (African American) both failed to communicate extenuatingcircumstances with the instructor prior to exams; Student 4 (African American) had already beengranted an exam retake by the instructor in the same course; and Student 6 (White) and Student 7(Asian) both requested to submit assignments after the final posting of the course grade that werenot submitted when due. Notes in the data received from the College reflect this information.The Appeals Committee Chair also reported that the Committee also reviewed several appealsfrom the School of Nursing at the Ocala, Florida campus under the third tier of the AppealsPolicy. Data from the College shows that for Student 1 (African American) and Student 5(African American), the Committee approved the third-tier level appeals. For Student 1, notes inthe data state that due to a life crisis, Student 1 was allowed to retake the Mental Health Nursing
OCR Complaint #04-20-2108Page 7 of 10course as an exception to the general policy. For Student 5, the student had a medical excuse forthe day of the Final Exam and should not have been required to take the exam on that date. Thenotes also state that for Student 6 (White), the student requested submission of a missingassignment in order to receive a passing grade. This request was denied without comment. ForStudent 7 (Asian), the student asked to redo an assignment in order to receive a passing grade.The appeal was denied because two different instructors previously graded the assignment andgave the student a failing grade.In addition to the Complainant and Students 1 through 7, 15 other students filed academicappeals with other instructors at the first tier level in the School of Nursing at the Ocala, Floridacampus during the fall 2019 quarter, for a total of 22 students who filed academic appeals thatquarter. Of those students, only one student had a reported disability (Student 8), and thatstudent’s appeal was approved. Notes in the data state that Student 8 received academicadjustments and the appeal was granted due to a personal situation. The appeals of fiveadditional students without disabilities were also approved: Students 9, 13, 14, 21 and 22. Thenotes state that Student 9’s appeal was approved due to personal circumstances including aneviction; Student 13’s appeal was granted due to an unexpected family emergency; Student 14’sappeal was approved due to extenuating personal circumstances; Student 21’s appeal wasgranted due to a technical error on the College’s part regarding the Final Exam; and Student 22’sappeal was approved due to personal issues involving a death. The races of the additional 15students were as follows: 3 African American students (Students 9, 10, and 11), 6 White students(Students 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17), 1 Hispanic student (Student 18), 1 Asian student (Student19), and 4 students of unknown races (Students 8, 20, 21, and 22). There is no evidence in thedata that the disability status or race of these students were factors in the appeal decisions.On June 11, 2020, OCR contacted the Complainant and gave him the opportunity to provideadditional evidence. The Complainant did not provide any additional evidence. However, hestated that he enrolled at another college and finished the program after he was involuntarilywithdrawn from the College. He graduated in May 2020 and does not wish to return to theCollege.AnalysisDisability DiscriminationThe Complainant alleged that he was treated differently on the basis of disability when staffmembers denied two appeals he filed requesting to retake an exam for which he received hislowest test grade in December 2019, and they approved appeals to retake exams filed by studentswithout disabilities.The Complainant reported to the Instructor that he was diagnosed with depression in September2019. However, the Complainant never registered with the College as a student with a disabilityand did not receive any academic adjustments. During the first two tiers of the appeals process,the Complainant did not report that he had a disability; however, he indicated that he had beendiagnosed with depression and was taking medication that had an effect on him. During the thirdtier of the appeals process, the Complainant did report that he was being discriminated against on
OCR Complaint #04-20-2108Page 8 of 10the basis of disability when his appeal was denied under the first two tiers. Based on theevidence, OCR cannot determine whether the Complainant is a qualified student with a disabilitybut will assume for purposes of analysis that he has a disability.Data from the College shows that in addition to the Complainant’s appeal, the Instructor deniedtwo other appeals that she reviewed (Students 1 and 2). The Dean of Nursing also denied thosetwo appeals as well as five additional appeals that were filed with other instructors (Students 3,4, 5, 6 and 7). Four students whose appeals were denied by the Dean of Nursing (Students 1, 5,6 and 7) then appealed to the Committee. The Committee then approved two of the appeals(Students 1 and 5) and denied two of them (Students 6 and 7). For the two appeals that wereapproved, notes in the data show that Student 1 was allowed to retake the Mental Health Nursingcourse due to a life crisis, and that Student 5 was allowed to retake the Final Exam because thestudent had a medical excuse for that day. None of these students had reported disabilities.Data from the College also shows that 15 other students filed academic appeals with otherinstructors at the first tier level of review in the School of Nursing at the Ocala, Florida campusduring the fall 2019 quarter, for a total of 22 students (not including the Complainant) who filedacademic appeals that quarter. Of those 15 additional students, only one student had a disability(Student 8), whose appeal was approved, and the appeals of five additional students withoutdisabilities were approved (Students 9, 13, 14, 21 and 22). Notes in the data from the Collegeshow legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the approval of those appeals.In reviewing the record, OCR notes that the Complainant informed OCR that he did not knowhow to report that he had a disability to the College, and there is no evidence that any Collegestaff members informed him how to request academic adjustments or addressed his complaint ofdisability based discrimination during the third tier of the appeals process.Prior to the conclusion of the investigation, the College offered to voluntarily resolve Issue 1under Section 302 of OCR’s CPM, and OCR determined there was sufficient evidence to supporta voluntary resolution with respect to Issue 1.To resolve the compliance concern described above, the College will: 1) send an email blast toall students enrolled in its School of Nursing at the Ocala, Florida campus, notifying them howstudents with disabilities may contact the Campus Accommodations Coordinator and requestacademic adjustments under its Accommodations Policy; 2) amend its Accommodations Policyto include the name and contact information of the Campus Accommodations Coordinator in itsCourse Catalog and online; and 3) provide training to all instructors and staff at its School ofNursing on the Ocala, Florida campus on how students may contact the CampusAccommodations Coordinator and request academic adjustments under its AccommodationsPolicy.OCR received the enclosed Resolution Agreement (Agreement), which when fully implemented,will resolve the issues identified above. OCR will monitor the District’s implementation of thisAgreement to ensure that it is fully implemented. If the District fails to implement theAgreement, OCR will reopen the case and take appropriate action to ensure compliance withSection 504.
OCR Complaint #04-20-2108Page 9 of 10Race DiscriminationThe Complainant also alleged that he was treated differently on the basis of race (AfricanAmerican) when staff members denied two appeals he filed requesting to retake an exam forwhich he received his lowest test grade in December 2019, and approved appeals to retake examsfiled by students of other races.Of the seven students who filed appeals as discussed above, the race of those students is asfollows: Student 1 (African American); Student 2 (African American); Student 3 (“Two or moreraces”); Student 4 (African American), Student 5 (African American); Student 6 (White); andStudent 7 (Asian). Again, the first tier level appeals filed by Students 1 and 2 were denied by theInstructor, and the second tier level appeals filed by Students 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were denied bythe Dean of Nursing. Of the third tier level appeals filed by Students 1, 5, 6, and 7, the appealsfiled by Students 1 and 5 (both African American), were approved, and the appeals filed byStudent 6 (White) and Student 7 (Asian) were denied. The reasons for the approvals of the twoappeals filed by Students 1 and 5 are discussed above. Because the Complainant is AfricanAmerican, and the two students whose appeals were approved are also African American, andthe College denied the appeals of students of other races, there is no evidence that theComplainant was treated differently on the basis of race regarding his appeals.Additionally, the races of the additional five students who filed appeals with other instructorsand whose appeals were approved are as follows: one African American student (Student 9), twoWhite students (Students 13 and 14) and two students of unknown races (Students 21 and 22).As these appeals were filed by students of different races, there is insufficient evidence of bias inthese appeals decisions. Also, notes in the data from the College show legitimate,nondiscriminatory reasons for the approval of those appeals. Therefore, OCR finds that there isinsufficient evidence that the Complainant was treated differently on the basis of race.ConclusionBased on the foregoing, OCR has determined that Issue 1 is resolved under Section 302 ofOCR’s CPM, and that for Issue 2, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that theCollege treated the Student differently on the basis of race, in noncompliance with Title VI.This concludes OCR’s investigation of the complaint and should not be interpreted to address theCollege’s compliance with any other regulatory provision or to address any issues other thanthose addressed in this letter. This letter sets forth OCR’s determination in an individual OCRcase. This letter is not a formal statement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, orconstrued as such. OCR’s formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCRofficial and made available to the public. The Complainant may file a private suit in federalcourt whether or not OCR finds a violation.The Complainant has a right to appeal OCR’s determination regarding Issue 2 within 60 calendardays of the date indicated on this letter. In the appeal, the Complainant must explain why thefactual information was incomplete or incorrect, the legal analysis was incorrect or theappropriate legal standard was not applied, and how correction of any error(s) would change the
OCR Complaint #04-20-2108Page 10 of 10outcome of the case; failure to do so may result in dismissal of the appeal. If the complainantappeals OCR’s determination, OCR will forward a copy of the appeal form or written statementto the recipient. The recipient has the option to submit to OCR a response to the appeal. Therecipient must submit any response within 14 calendar days of the date that OCR forwarded acopy of the appeal to the recipient.Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and relatedcorrespondence and records, upon request. If we receive such a request, we will seek to protect,to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information, which, if released, couldreasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.Please be
Rasmussen College Ocala Campus 4775 SW 46th Court Ocala, Florida 34474 Re: OCR Docket No. 04-20-2108 Dear XXXXX: The U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), has completed its investigation of the above-referenced complaint filed against Rasmussen College (College), on January 3, 2020, alleging discrimination on the bases of .
