Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

Roy Payan and Portia Mason (plaintiffs) were blind students who attended Los Angeles Community College (LACC), a public college in the Los Angeles Community College District (the college district) (defendant). Payan and Mason were approved by LACC for disability accommodations, including receiving instructional materials in an electronic format accessible via screen-reading software. However, Payan and Mason encountered three accessibility issues specific to their classwork: (1) they could not get accessible versions of some in-class materials, such as PowerPoint presentations and handouts; (2) they could not get accessible versions of some textbooks, either at all or in time to keep up; and (3) Payan could not get an accessible version of a software program used in his math class, preventing him from completing several assignments. Payan and Mason also experienced two accessibility issues general to all blind students: (1) LACC’s website and electronic student portal were incompatible with screen-reading software, even though reasonably priced modifications could make them compatible; and (2) LACC’s research and library materials were not regularly screened for accessibility. Instead, accessibility issues with research materials were handled on an ad hoc basis in response to student complaints, which caused delays or prevented blind students from completing classwork. For example, Mason was unable to participate in a psychology assignment that required using a database that was inaccessible to her. Payan, Mason, and a nonprofit advocating for the removal of barriers for blind people (plaintiff) sued the college district in federal district court, alleging it had violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by denying Payan and Mason access to educational programs. The trial court ruled that the three individual-barrier claims and two systemic-barrier claims must be analyzed under the disparate-impact theory, as opposed to the failure-to-accommodate theory. At a bench trial, the court applied the disparate-impact framework and found LACC had violated the laws. The college district appealed, arguing that the court applied the wrong legal framework. The college district claimed that, at the college level, accessibility claims were solely about individualized accommodations, not systemic barriers.