Under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of Education Organization Act

Report to the President and 

Secretary of Education

Securing Equal Educational Opportunity

U.S. Department of Education

Office for Civil Rights

FISCAL YEAR

2016
2

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

U.S. Department of Education 

Office for Civil Rights

Catherine E. Lhamon, Assistant Secretary

December 2016

This report is submitted under Section 203(b)(1) of the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979, 

Pub. L. No. 96–88, which provides: “The Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights shall make an annual report to the 

Secretary, the President, and the Congress summarizing the compliance and enforcement activities of the Office 

for Civil Rights and identifying significant civil rights or compliance problems as to which such Office has made a 

recommendation for corrective action and as to which, in the judgment of the Assistant Secretary, adequate progress 

is not being made.” 20 U.S.C. §3413(b)(1).

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. 

The report’s citation should be:

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights

Securing Equal Educational Opportunity: Report to the President and Secretary of Education Under Section 203(b)(1) 

of the Department of Education Organization Act, FY 2016, Washington, DC, 2016.

This report is also available on the Office for Civil Rights website at http://www.ed.gov/ocr.

Any updates to this report will be available at this website.
3

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

Table of Contents

Message from the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights................................................... 4

Executive Summary and Report Highlights................................................................... 5

The Office for Civil Rights: Overview and Trends........................................................... 6

Amplifying the Impact: Notable Outreach and Collaborative Activities.............................11

The Civil Rights Data Collection.................................................................................. 12

Policy Guidance: An Overview.....................................................................................16

Title VI: Discrimination Based on Race, Color, or National Origin.................................... 17

Title IX: Discrimination Based on Sex.......................................................................... 24

Section 504 and ADA Title II: Discrimination Based on Disability....................................32

Enforcement Activity Under Other Statutes ................................................................. 40

Looking Ahead.......................................................................................................... 41

Appendix...................................................................................................................42

Endnotes.................................................................................................................. 43
4

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

Message from the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) works to ensure satisfaction of federal civil rights laws at 

every level of our education system through robust investigation and enforcement, policy 

guidance, data collection, technical assistance, and customer service. This report highlights 

the ongoing vital necessity of that work; in schools throughout our nation, students continue 

to lack access to a quality education or face barriers in the form of discriminatory harassment, violence, or discipline. Every one of these students deserves the educational opportunity Congress, and our nation, promised to them; every one of these students deserves our 

protection and our support.

As detailed in this report, during fiscal year (FY) 2016, OCR processed nearly 17,000 complaints – exceeding last year’s record high by more than 60 percent – and opened nearly 

4,000 investigations (29 percent more than last year). 

The case descriptions in this report include a comprehensive resource equity review of a 

district in Ohio, making good on our country’s fundamental promises about race equity; a 

set of agreements ensuring that all of Arizona’s English learners will receive appropriate identification and language supports; 

an agreement that applies to a county-wide school system in California ensuring that students with disabilities are appropriately 

identified, placed, and served based on their needs; and a resolution ensuring relief for students at a North Dakota university that 

failed to complete an investigation when a student alleged that she was sexually harassed and assaulted by a professor.

These resolutions represent real change in the lives of students, for which I am deeply grateful. Nonetheless, I will be forever 

haunted by some of the facts we uncovered during our investigations, including resolutions involving a student with a disability 

whose teacher told her to kill herself; a nine-year-old whose school subjected him to prone restraint or recovery from restraint 

for more time than he received instruction, and whose mother heard him crying in a restraint room while she was outside the 

school in the parking lot on her way to pick him up; an Arab American student whose peers hurled slurs including “terrorist” at 

her in school hallways; a recent immigrant student being taunted “Welcome to America” as he was physically assaulted, sustaining severe injuries; and a college student whose university, despite her reporting she had been sexually assaulted by a campus 

security officer, failed to investigate appropriately the potential risk to other students. These facts underscore our ongoing need to 

safeguard the civil rights guaranteed to all students.

As is our consistent practice, OCR’s dedicated staff used every tool available to us to protect students’ civil rights. This year, 

OCR published five Dear Colleague letters that provide guidance on issues related to students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity 

disorder (ADHD), gender equity in career and technical education, protections for transgender students, voluntary youth service 

organizations, and lawful use of race in college admissions. We also responded to 3,901 correspondence inquiries, processed 

6,300 hotline calls, facilitated 133 language translation requests, and resolved 8,625 cases.1

Finally, with this year’s annual report, we mark the end of eight productive years in the Obama Administration of securing equal 

educational opportunity for students. While numbers alone can never tell the full story, the 76,000 complaints we handled, the 

66,000 cases we resolved, the more than 5,400 resolution agreements we reached, and the 34 policy guidance documents we 

issued between 2009 and 2016 speak volumes about ongoing student need and this agency’s service to our school communities.

We accomplished our work during an eight-year period in which our staff level declined by 8 percent even as our complaint volume skyrocketed by 170 percent. I thank all current and former OCR staff for their consummate skill and dedication, and I remain 

hopeful that OCR will obtain additional resources to continue to deliver justice for students with skill and speed in the years ahead.

Sincerely, 

Catherine E. Lhamon 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
5

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

Executive Summary and Report Highlights

In FY 2016, OCR promoted equity and excellence in education 

through conducting investigations and monitoring schools under 

resolution agreements, promoting greater understanding of how 

OCR interprets and enforces civil rights laws through the release 

of policy guidance, providing technical assistance and outreach to 

foster greater awareness of civil rights laws and obligations, and 

administering the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). 

In FY 2016, the quality and pace of OCR’s enforcement work 

remained high. OCR received a record-high 16,720 complaints, 

initiated 13 proactive investigations (called compliance reviews), 

and resolved 8,625 cases overall, including 1,116 resolutions 

that secured changes protective of students’ civil rights in schools 

around the nation. (See the Appendix for the total number of 

resolution agreements in FY 2016 by jurisdiction, state, and type of 

investigation.) Over the past eight years, the number of complaints 

OCR received generally rose in several areas, including complaints 

related to the restraint or seclusion of students with disabilities; 

harassment based on race, color, or national origin; web accessibility for students with disabilities; and sexual violence. 

OCR developed and released five policy guidance documents and 

hosted 72 policy-related listening sessions with stakeholders on a 

variety of topics related to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 

1972 (e.g., ensuring equity in career and technical education (CTE) 

programs to all students regardless of sex), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990 (e.g., providing students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with equal educational opportunity), and Title 

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (e.g., clarifying the permissibility, 

consistent with U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, of the voluntary 

use of race and ethnicity to achieve diversity in schools).

OCR provided more than 295 technical assistance sessions to 

a wide range of stakeholders – including schools and districts, 

state education agencies, colleges and universities, parent groups, 

nonprofit and advocacy organizations, and other federal agencies – 

and conducted other outreach to galvanize action on important civil 

rights topics. Notable outreach efforts include convening university 

presidents to explore the issue of racial harassment on college and 

university campuses; hosting a conference with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department 

of Transportation to identify effective paths to increase and sustain 

healthy, non-discriminatory, and diverse schools and communities; 

and cosponsoring a forum with the White House and Georgetown 

University to improve school systems’ approach to better serve girls 

of color who have experienced trauma. 

OCR released the 2013-14 school year CRDC, which includes data 

from approximately 97,000 public schools serving about 50 million 

students nationwide. For the first time, OCR made the entire CRDC 

data file accessible and downloadable by the public. OCR also 

prepared to administer the 2015-16 CRDC.
6

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

For more than fifty years, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has 

served our nation’s students by enforcing federal civil rights laws 

that protect them from discrimination. 

Mission and Scope

The mission of OCR is to ensure equal access to education and 

to promote educational excellence across the nation through 

vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws. OCR’s work to eliminate 

discriminatory barriers to education directly supports the Department’s mission to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence 

and ensuring equal access. OCR safeguards the rights of students 

through the development of policy guidance to 

assist schools2

 and other educational institutions receiving federal financial assistance 

in understanding how OCR interprets and 

enforces federal civil rights laws; the investigation of possible violations of civil rights laws; 

the dissemination of information and technical 

assistance about students’ rights and schools’ 

responsibilities; and the collection of data on 

key education and civil rights issues in our 

nation’s public schools.

OCR’s mandate to eliminate discriminatory barriers in education impacts more than 79 million 

individuals at institutions that receive federal 

funds, including all state educational agencies; approximately 18,200 local educational 

agencies; approximately 7,200 postsecondary institutions, including 

proprietary schools and community colleges; 80 state vocational rehabilitation agencies and their sub-recipients; and other institutions 

that receive U.S. Department of Education financial assistance, 

such as libraries, museums, and correctional institutions. 

Jurisdiction

OCR ensures equal access to education for our nation’s students by 

enforcing federal civil rights laws and implementing regulations that 

prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, 

sex, disability, and age in all programs and institutions that receive 

financial assistance from the Department (see Figure 1). These 

laws are:

s Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting race, color, 

and national origin discrimination);

s Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (prohibiting sex 

discrimination); 

s Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (prohibiting disability discrimination); 

s Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (prohibiting age discrimination); 

s Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (prohibiting 

disability discrimination in State and local government services 

-- whether or not programs receive Federal financial assistance); and 

s Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001 (prohibiting 

public elementary and secondary schools, local educational 

agencies, and state educational agencies from denying equal 

access or a fair opportunity to meet, or discriminating against, 

any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America or 

any other youth group listed as a patriotic society in Title 36 of 

the United States Code).

These laws and their implementing regulations represent the Congressional mandate that is the basis for all of OCR’s work.

Structure and Functions

The Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, who serves at the pleasure 

of the President of the United States and is appointed with the 

advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, leads the Office for Civil 

Rights. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights includes 

a Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, a Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Enforcement, an Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, a 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Operations and Outreach, 

a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management and Operations, a 

Chief of Staff, two Senior Counsel, a Special Assistant, and two 

Confidential Assistants. 

OCR serves our nation’s students through a headquarters office and 

twelve regional offices located across the country. Its headquarters 

and DC Metro enforcement offices are located in Washington, DC, 

and the remaining 11 enforcement offices are in Atlanta, Boston, 

Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle (see Figure 2). 

The Office for Civil Rights: Overview and Trends

Boy Scouts of America 

Equal Access Act (2001)

Age Discrimination Act of 1975

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title II of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Figure 1: OCR Enforcement Jurisdiction Timeline
7

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

Complaint Receipts and Staffing Trends3

FY 2016 saw a continuation of a decade-long trend of successive 

record-high complaint receipts and declining staffing levels. OCR 

received 16,720 complaints in FY 2016, by far the highest oneyear total in OCR’s history and 61 percent higher than last year’s 

total. 

In FY 2016, sex discrimination claims comprised 46 percent 

(7,747) of all complaints received in the year, as compared to 28 

percent (2,939) in FY 2015. The majority of Title IX complaints 

received this year (more than 6,000) were filed by a single complainant alleging discrimination in schools’ athletics programs. 

Complaints involving discrimination based on disability status 

comprised 36 percent (5,936) of all complaints this year; race or 

national origin discrimination complaints comprised 15 percent 

(2,439); and age discrimination complaints comprised three percent (581) (see Figure 3). 

The number of complaints OCR receives annually has increased 

by 188 percent over the past ten years (FY 2006-2016) and 113 

percent over the past five years (FY 2011-2016). In particular, the 

number of complaints has risen in areas such as restraint and 

seclusion of students with disabilities (100 percent increase since 

FY 2011) (see Figure 4); sexual violence (277 percent increase at 

the K-12 level and 831 percent increase at the postsecondary level 

since FY 2011) (see Figure 5); web accessibility for persons with 

disabilities (511 percent increase since FY 2011) (see Figure 6); 

and harassment on the basis of race, color or national origin (17 

percent increase since FY 2011) (see Figure 8). 

Figure 2: Map of OCR Regional Offices

OCR Regional Offices

Guam

Northern 

Mariana 

Islands

Puerto 

Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands

American Samoa

HI

WA

OR

ID

MT

NV

CA CO

TX

IL OH

WY

UT

AZ NM

OK

KS

MI

NE

SD

ND

MN

IA

IN

AR

MS AL

TN

KY

WV

LA

WI

MO

GA

PA

MA

VT

NH

ME

VA

NC

SC

FL

NY Boston

NJ

DE

CT

AK

RI

Seattle

Denver Kansas 

City

Dallas

Atlanta

Chicago Cleveland

San 

Francisco

Philadelphia

Washington, DC

(Metro) 

New York

OCR REGIONAL OFFICE STATE, DISTRICT, OR TERRITORY

Washington, DC (Metro) DC, VA, NC, SC

Atlanta, GA GA, TN, AL, FL

Boston, MA MA, ME, VT, NH, RI, CT

Chicago, IL IL, IN, IA, WI, MN, ND

Cleveland, OH OH, MI

Dallas, TX TX, AR, LA, MS

Denver, CO CO, WY, UT, AZ, NM

Kansas City, MO MO, SD, NE, KS, OK

New York, NY NY, NJ, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands

Philadelphia, PA PA, DE, MD, WV, KY

San Francisco, CA CA

Seattle, WA WA, OR, ID, MT, NV, AK, HI, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands
8

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

OCR’s staffing level has generally declined over the life of the 

agency even though complaint volume has exponentially increased 

(see Figure 7). OCR’s staff level at the end of FY 2016 was an 

estimated 563 Full Time Equivalents (FTE), a slight increase from 

the all-time low of 540 staff (FTE) OCR had on board in FY 2015. At 

the end of FY 2016, the number of OCR staff was 11 percent below 

the level ten years ago (FY 2006). As noted above, OCR’s complaint 

volume has nearly tripled in that time span (16,720 in FY 2016 

compared to 5,805 in FY 2006). 

Fostering Greater Efficiencies to 

Maximize Impact

To ensure the successful fulfillment of OCR’s mission and the 

timely handling of cases, OCR has taken aggressive measures to 

maximize efficiency in operations. OCR increased staff training 

opportunities and reduced associated costs by shifting from live 

training and meetings to more cost-efficient online training and 

videoconferencing. Further, to maximize OCR enforcement staff 

time on compliance activities, OCR worked to provide more online 

Figure 3: Percentage of Complaints Received by Type of 

Alleged Discrimination* (FY 2016)

Sex 7,747** 46% 

Disability 5,936 36% 

Race & National 2,439 15%

Origin

Age 581 3%

* The numbers above do not reflect the total number of complaints received in FY 2016 because 

some complaints cover more than one statute and because a small percentage of complaints 

received in FY 2016 have not yet been categorized by statute.

** 6,157 of these are multiple complaints from an individual.

Figure 4: Increase in Number of Complaints Over Time Involving 

Restraint and Seclusion* of Students with Disabilities**

0

20

40

60

80

100

‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15

37 33 40

55

83 74

‘16

Fiscal Year

Restraint and Seculsion Complaint Receipts 

– Section 504/Title II

* Restraint is a personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces the ability of a student to move his 

or her torso, arms, legs, or head freely, or it is the use of any device or equipment to restrict a 

student’s freedom of movement. Seclusion is the involuntary confinement of a student alone in a 

room or area from which the student is physically prevented from leaving.

** OCR’s case management database did not track this discrete issue prior to FY 2011. 

20 35 41 33 63 127 226 260

‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16

Fiscal Year

Total ESE and 

PSE Title IX

Sexual Violence

Complaints

21 0

100

50

200

150

250

300

11 106 9

31

32

165

61

177

83

Postsecondary 

(PSE)

Title IX 

Sexual

Violence

Elementary and 

Secondary (ESE)

Title IX 

Sexual

Violence

Elementary and Secondary (ESE) 

and Postsecondary (PSE) Title IX 

Sexual Violence Complaints 

24

11

22

19

16

17

Figure 5: Increase in Number of Complaints Over Time Involving Sexual Violence
9

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

information about OCR’s work. For example, OCR established a new 

OCR Frequently Asked Questions Hub on its website that includes 

documents that address all statutes that OCR enforces, the Civil 

Rights Data Collection (CRDC), and the OCR complaint process, 

as well as a link to a new civil rights tutorial page that includes 

technical assistance materials related to OCR’s work. In addition 

to updating materials on its enforcement work, OCR continued to 

publish additional policy guidance documents on its website. These 

materials inform institutions about their legal obligations while also 

educating the public about their rights under federal civil rights law. 

Making this information easily available online serves the dual goals 

of increasing public awareness of civil rights and reducing staff 

time needed to respond to public inquiries. 

Enhancing Transparency 

OCR has elevated its commitment to transparency by improving 

the way it disseminates information to the public. In FY 2016 OCR 

continued to update its website with case resolution agreements 

and letters, policy guidance documents, technical assistance materials and information about OCR’s enforcement processes, making 

it among the most highly visible sites throughout the Department 

of Education with 2,740,988 hits in FY 2016, an increase of 14 

percent over last year. Additionally, OCR posted more resolution 

agreements than ever before in its history, making a total of 1,391 

case resolutions (including 2,773 resolution documents) available 

and searchable online. 

Figure 7: OCR Staff Level (FTE*) and Complaints Received, 

FY 1981-2016

Figure 6: Increase in Number of Complaints Over Time 

Involving Web Accessibility for Students with Disabilities*

Figure 8: Increase in Number of Complaints Over Time Involving Racial Harassment

* OCR’s case management database did not track this discrete issue prior to FY 2011. 

‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16

Fiscal Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

‘11

9 7 8

16

28

55

Web Accessibility Complaint Receipts 

– Section 504/Title II

‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16

354

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

176

266 236

289

362 404

96 137

176

166

173

163

321

198

344

362 373 465 528 577 530 484 542

Postsecondary 

(PSE)

Title VI 

Racial

Harassment 

Elementary and 

Secondary (ESE)

Title VI 

Racial

Harassment

Fiscal Year

Total ESE and 

PSE Title VI

Racial Harassment

Complaints

Elementary and Secondary (ESE) 

and Postsecondary (PSE) Title VI 

Racial Harassment Complaints

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,500

3,500

5,500

7,500

9,500

11,500

13,500

15,500

17,500

Staff Level 

(FTE) 1,099 870 797 744 696 630 619 563

Complaint 

Receipts 2,887 2,648 3,809 4,828 4,571 5,805 7,841 16,720 Staff Level (FTE)

Complaints

Fiscal Year

* Full Time Equivalents
10

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

Additionally, in FY 2016, OCR updated its website to feature new 

landing pages, including one dedicated to how requests for religious exemptions under Title IX are handled and a second clarifying 

when discrimination against students of a particular religion can 

also constitute national origin, ethnicity, or race discrimination protected under Title VI. The Title IX religious exemptions page includes 

information about how OCR processes and evaluates religious exemption requests; a list of requests made by institutions and OCR’s 

response; a chart listing all of the institutions that currently hold 

a religious exemption and those that have a religious exemption 

request pending with OCR; and a searchable database of Title IX 

exemption requests and responses, with copies of original documents uploaded for viewing. When Title IX was enacted in 1972, 

Congress explicitly provided an exemption for schools controlled by 

religious organizations to the extent that the law’s application would 

be inconsistent with the organization’s religious tenets. As of September 30, 2016, 246 institutions held current exemptions. In FY 

2016, OCR granted 38 religious exemptions to institutions seeking 

new or expanded exemptions.

The religious discrimination page has information about the federal 

laws that protect students from discrimination involving their 

religion, as well as information about circumstances under which 

discrimination based on national origin, ethnicity, or race may also 

be implicated, with links to OCR policy guidance, notable case resolutions, and resources in multiple languages and from other federal 

agencies. In addition to unveiling the new web page on religious 

discrimination, OCR updated its online civil rights complaint form

to clarify when OCR can investigate complaints of discrimination 

involving religion because race, ethnicity, or national origin also are 

implicated and to reaffirm that students, parents, and persons of 

all faiths can file such complaints with OCR even though the laws 

OCR enforces do not expressly address religious discrimination in 

education. 

Inquiries from the Public

OCR continued to provide excellent customer service and enhance 

the public’s knowledge of their civil rights by responding to public inquiries for information. Through its Customer Service Team, 

OCR responded to 5,025 incoming correspondence inquiries and 

answered 8,019 OCR hotline telephone inquiries in FY 2016. The 

Department also distributed 701 copies of selected OCR publications in response to inquiries from advocacy groups, educational 

institutions, state and local educational agencies, parents, students, 

members of the general public, and enforcement offices.

Fulfilling Freedom of Information Act Requests

Over the past several years, OCR has devoted considerable staff 

time and financial resources to fulfill Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) requests in a timely manner. In FY 2016, OCR processed 

1,244 FOIA requests, a 14 percent increase over the number 

processed in FY 2015.
11

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

Amplifying the Impact: 

Notable Outreach and Collaborative Activities

Building on work over the last several years, OCR continues to 

engage in intra- and inter-agency collaboration on priority initiatives 

and public events.

OCR has made significant contributions to several federal efforts 

aimed at increasing diversity in schools. In June 2016, the U.S. 

Department of Education hosted a conference, in collaboration 

with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, to bring together many of 

the country’s foremost practitioners and experts to engage in a 

dialogue about the value of diversity and opportunity in schools 

and neighborhoods, and to identify effective paths to increase and 

sustain healthy, non-discriminatory, racially and socioeconomically 

diverse school environments. OCR also brought together university presidents and leaders in November 2015 for a convening to 

explore the issue of racial harassment on college and university 

campuses, and to develop best practices for creating a campus 

culture supportive for all students.

As part of the Administration’s United State of Women Summit, and 

in collaboration with the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, OCR released guidance (see page 28) to make clear that all 

students, regardless of their sex, must have equal access to the full 

range of career and technical education programs offered. The Dear 

Colleague letter clarifies the legal obligations under the civil rights 

laws to ensure equitable access to career and technical education 

(CTE) programs and provides examples of issues that may raise 

concerns regarding compliance with these obligations. While the 

guidance focuses on discrimination based on sex in CTE programs, 

OCR works with institutions to ensure that their CTE programs 

are free from multiple forms of unlawful discrimination, including 

discrimination based on race, national origin, or disability.

OCR continues participation in the White House Task Force to 

Protect Students from Sexual Assault (Task Force), established by 

President Obama in 2014. In September 2016, the Task Force 

released a checklist for school districts, outlining considerations 

for the development of sexual misconduct policies focused at the 

elementary and secondary level. Another Task Force deliverable, the 

Safe Space to Learn resource package, which provides a range of 

materials to support school efforts to eliminate sexual harassment 

and sexual violence, was released on the same day. OCR also 

continues its practice of transparency by making available the list 

of schools OCR is investigating in the area of Title IX sexual violence 

as well as a searchable database of resolution agreements on its 

website.

Also in collaboration with the White House, as well as other partners, OCR cosponsored a conference called “Trauma-Informed 

Approaches in School: Supporting Girls of Color and Rethinking 

Discipline.” The one-day convening brought together states and districts, key researchers and experts, and nonprofit partners to focus 

on improving school systems’ approach to better serve girls of color 

who have experienced trauma. 

OCR’s work on the Asian American and Pacific Islander Bullying 

Prevention Task Force (AAPI Task Force) culminated with the 

release of the AAPI Bullying Prevention Task Force Report in August 

2016. The report represented two years of collaborative efforts 

among the Departments of Education, Justice, and Health and 

Human Services, and was informed by 29 listening sessions and 

a nationwide survey on bullying of AAPI students. In addition, OCR 

worked with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to 

release a fact sheet about combating discrimination, based on race, 

color, and national origin, against Asian American, Native Hawaiian, 

and Pacific Islander and Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South Asian students (see the text box on this page). The fact sheet was translated 

into 15 languages.

Combating Discrimination against 

AANHPI and MASSA students

On June 6, 2016, OCR, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil 

Rights Division and the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders released a fact sheet highlighting 

examples of forms of discrimination that members of the 

Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander 

(AANHPI) and the Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South Asian 

(MASSA) communities commonly experience. The fact sheet 

clarifies the responsibility of schools to take immediate and 

appropriate action to respond to complaints of discrimination 

based on race, color, and national origin.
12

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

* OCR’s case management database did not track this discrete issue prior to FY 2009

Since 1968, the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) has been 

an important aspect of OCR’s overall strategy for administering 

and enforcing the civil rights statutes for which it is responsible. 

The CRDC is a biennial survey of the nation’s public schools for 

which local educational agencies, or school districts, are required 

to submit information.4 Its purpose is to collect data on leading 

civil rights indicators related to access and barriers to educational 

opportunity from early learning programs through high school. 

OCR conducts the CRDC for use in its monitoring and enforcement 

efforts regarding equal educational opportunity, and to disseminate 

information to the public on the equity health of public schools. Information compiled through the CRDC includes student enrollment 

and educational programs and services data that are disaggregated 

by race/ethnicity, sex, English learner status, and disability status. 

The CRDC is a valuable resource for other Department offices and 

federal agencies, policymakers and researchers, educators and 

school officials, parents and students, and the public who seek data 

on student opportunity and equity. 

Improving Quality

In FY 2016, OCR continued with a multi-year effort that began in FY 

2013 to improve the data submission system, increase data quality, 

and reduce burden on school districts in complying with data 

collection requirements. Building on work completed in FY 2013 

and FY 2014 in collaboration with the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES), many new features of the submission system 

contributed to increased efficiency and data accuracy. School districts benefited from the presentation of the survey items in a new 

module format, which allowed them to submit data by broad categories. The system enabled districts to conduct automated, customized quality checks of their data before certifying it as complete 

and accurate. Individualized feedback reports that summarized the 

data submitted also assisted districts in resolving possible reporting 

errors and provided them with a visually intuitive depiction of their 

2013-14 data before they certified it. In addition, school districts 

were offered the opportunity to prepare for the 2015-16 CRDC by 

previewing data elements that will be introduced to the collection. 

New data elements for the 2015-16 collection were included as 

optional items in the 2013-14 CRDC data submission system. 

Furthermore, during the data submission period for the 2013-14 

CRDC, OCR developed additional technical assistance materials 

and disseminated them through a community of practice resource 

website to address emerging issues and common questions. 

As a result of the improvements to the data submission system, 

and targeted outreach efforts by OCR staff, 99.2 percent (16,785) 

of school districts submitted and certified their data for the 2013-

14 CRDC. The 2013-14 CRDC closed on December 31, 2015 and 

included 50,035,744 public school students. The district response 

rate was an increase over the 2011-12 CRDC response rate (98.4 

percent).

For the 2013-14 CRDC, OCR implemented a pilot program to support the pre-population of data by eight state educational agencies 

(SEA), in an effort to improve the quality of CRDC data collected. 

The collaboration efforts were expanded in FY 2016 for the 2015-

16 CRDC; ten SEAs will participate in the collaborative program 

with their respective school districts. The SEAs pre-populate the 

CRDC survey forms with data they already collect and submit for 

other federal reporting to reduce the reporting burden on their 

school districts. Past efforts resulted in SEAs providing between 

40 and 100 percent of the required data elements that otherwise 

would have to be completed by the school districts.

Improving Transparency and Participation 

Among Districts

On June 7, 2016, OCR released data for the 2013-14 CRDC. The 

release included a comprehensive First Look report that summarized key data findings about equity and opportunity gaps in our 

nation’s public schools. OCR strives to make the CRDC data readily 

accessible, useable, and understandable for all CRDC data consumers. In conjunction with Department partners, for the first time, 

the 2013-14 data file was made available online, as well as in a 

traditional DVD format. Through September 30, 2016, the online 

data file has been downloaded more than 2,700 times, and approximately 110 users have requested the public-use data files via DVD.

OCR offers a variety of technical assistance to school districts to 

support their efforts to submit data for the CRDC. While the vast 

majority of school districts submit the required data on time, OCR 

sent letters to the 135 districts (less than one percent of all districts) that did not comply with their obligation to provide civil rights 

data for the 2013-14 CRDC. The letter required a commitment 

that these districts submit data for the upcoming 2015-16 CRDC 

in a timely way and notified the districts that if they failed to make 

and satisfy that commitment, the Department could take additional 

administrative action, including placing conditions on their ability 

to receive federal funding. Sixty-seven percent of these districts 

subsequently certified that they will submit data for the upcoming 

collection, and the Department is continuing efforts to secure compliance among the remaining non-responsive districts.

The Civil Rights Data Collection 

Resource Tip: Look up 2013-14 CRDC data for 

a school or district at http://ocrdata.ed.gov. 
13

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

0

5%

10%

15%

20%

■ American Indian or Alaska Native

■ Hispanic or Latino of any race

■ Asian

■ Black or African American

■ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

■ White

■ Two or more races

Boys Girls

 11% 10% 

5% 

8%

18% 

2%

7% 

 5%

1%

10%

2% 

5% 

4% 3%

School Discipline 

Black public preschool children are suspended from school 

at high rates: Black preschool children are 3.6 times as likely to 

receive one or more out-of-school suspensions as white preschool 

children.

s Black children represent 19 percent of preschool enrollment, 

but 47 percent of preschool children receiving one or more outof-school suspensions; in comparison, white children represent 

41 percent of preschool enrollment, but 28 percent of preschool 

children receiving one or more out-of-school suspensions.

Racial disparities in suspensions are also apparent in K-12 

schools: While 6 percent of all K-12 students received one or 

more out-of-school suspensions, the percentage is 18 percent for 

black boys; 10 percent for black girls; 5 percent for white boys; and 

2 percent for white girls (see Figure 9). 

s Black K-12 students are 3.8 times as likely to receive one or 

more out-of-school suspensions as white students. 

s Black girls are 8 percent of enrolled students, but 13 percent of 

students receiving one or more out-of-school suspensions. Girls 

of other races did not disproportionately receive one or more 

out-of-school suspensions. 

s American Indian or Alaska Native, Latino, Native Hawaiian or 

other Pacific Islander, and multiracial boys are also disproportionately suspended from school, representing 15 percent of 

K-12 students but 19 percent of K-12 students receiving one or 

more out-of-school suspensions.

Students with disabilities in grades K-12 are disproportionately suspended from school:

s Students with disabilities served by IDEA (12 percent) are more 

than twice as likely to receive one or more out-of-school suspensions as students without disabilities (5 percent).

A significant number of schools have sworn law enforcement officers (SLEOs), including school resource officers:

s 24 percent of elementary schools (grades K-6, excluding justice 

facilities) have SLEOs; 42 percent of high schools (grades 9-12, 

excluding justice facilities) have SLEOs.

s 51 percent of high schools with high black and Latino student 

enrollment have SLEOs.

Figure 9: Students receiving one or more out-of-school suspensions, by race/ethnicity and sex

CRDC Data At A Glance

In June 2016, OCR released the results of the 2013-14 CRDC. The 2013-14 universe of public schools and districts is comparable to 

the 2011-12 universe data collection. New data on preschool and justice facility education programs; civil rights coordinators in school 

districts; access to distance, credit recovery, and dual enrollment programs; student absenteeism; and the presence of sworn law enforcement officers in schools were presented for the first time in the 2013-14 CRDC. Below are select data highlights5

:

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2013-14.
14

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

Early Learning

More than half of school districts provide public preschool programs beyond providing those services 

required by federal law for children with disabilities — 

but many children are still left without access to early 

learning:

s By law, all school districts must provide special education 

and related services for preschool children with disabilities 

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

In addition, 54 percent of all school districts report providing 

preschool programs to children not served by IDEA.

Among school districts that report offering preschool programs for children not served by IDEA, nearly half provide 

full-day preschool:

s 48 percent of these school districts offer full-day preschool 

programs.

s 70 percent of these school districts offer part-day preschool 

programs.

(Percentages above do not sum to 100 percent because districts 

can offer both full-day and part-day programs.)

Of the school districts that offer preschool programs for 

children not served by IDEA, 73 percent extend preschool 

eligibility to all children in the district (but do not necessarily provide preschool programs universally to every child):

s The remaining 27 percent of school districts extend preschool 

eligibility to children from low-income families or children in 

Title I schools, but not to all children.

Most, but not all, public preschools are free: Of the school 

districts that provide preschool programs for children not served by 

IDEA, 86 percent offer part-day or full-day preschool at no cost; the 

remaining 14 percent require parents or guardians to pay for part 

or all of the cost to enroll children in preschool.

College and Career Readiness

High-rigor course access is not a reality across all of our 

nation’s schools: Nationwide, 48 percent of high schools offer 

calculus; 60 percent offer physics; 72 percent offer chemistry; and 

78 percent offer Algebra II (see Figure 10).

Black and Latino students have less access to high-level 

math and science courses:

s 33 percent of high schools with high black and Latino student 

enrollment6

 offer calculus, compared to 56 percent of high 

schools with low black and Latino student enrollment.

s 48 percent of high schools with high black and Latino student 

enrollment offer physics, compared to 67 percent of high 

schools with low black and Latino student enrollment.

Course enrollment rates differ by disability and English 

learner status:

s Students with disabilities served by IDEA are 12 percent of 

students in schools that offer Algebra II and 6 percent of 

students enrolled in Algebra II; they are 11 percent of students 

in schools that offer calculus and 1 percent of students enrolled 

in calculus; and they are 11 percent of students in schools that 

offer physics and 6 percent of students enrolled in physics.

s English learners are 5 percent of students in schools that offer 

Algebra II and 4 percent of students enrolled in Algebra II; they 

are 5 percent of students in schools that offer calculus and 1 

percent of students enrolled in calculus; and they are 5 percent 

of students in schools that offer physics and 4 percent of students enrolled in physics.

Girls are underrepresented among students enrolled in 

physics, but not in calculus:

s Girls represent 49 percent of all students nationwide and 49 

percent of students enrolled in calculus, but 46 percent of 

students enrolled in physics.

• To close the participation gap in physics, more than 91,000 

additional girls would need to participate in physics classes 

nationwide.

Figure 10: Percentage of high schools offering mathematics 

and science courses

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2013-14.

40%

50%

70%

90%

60%

80%

100%

88%

78%

84%

48%

85%

72%

60%

Algebra I Algebra II Geometry Calculus Biology Chemistry Physics 
15

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

Student enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP) courses is 

unequal: 

s Black and Latino students represent 38 percent of students 

in schools that offer AP courses, but 29 percent of students 

enrolled in at least one AP course.

s English learners represent 5 percent of students in schools that 

offer AP courses, but 2 percent of the students enrolled in at 

least one AP course.

s Students with disabilities served by IDEA represent 11 percent 

of all students in schools that offer AP courses, but fewer than 

2 percent of students enrolled in at least one AP course.

Chronic Student Absenteeism 

Nationwide, more than 6.8 million students – or 14 percent 

of all students – are chronically absent (absent 15 or more 

school days during the school year). 

More than 3 million high school students – or 19 percent of 

all high school students – are chronically absent. 

s	 20 percent or more of American Indian or Alaska Native (27 

percent), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (25 percent), 

black (23 percent), multiracial (21 percent), and Latino (21 

percent) high school students are chronically absent. 

s	 High school students with disabilities served by IDEA are 1.4 

times as likely to be chronically absent as high school students 

without disabilities. 

s	 21 percent of all English learner high school students are 

chronically absent.

More than 3.8 million elementary school students – or 11 

percent of all elementary school students – are chronically 

absent. 

s	 American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or other 

Pacific Islander elementary school students are almost twice as 

likely (1.9 times) to be chronically absent as white elementary 

school students. 

s	 Black elementary school students are 1.4 times as likely to be 

chronically absent as white elementary school students. 

s	 Elementary school students with disabilities served by IDEA 

are 1.5 times as likely to be chronically absent as elementary 

school students without disabilities. 

Education in Justice Facilities 

The 2013-14 CRDC collected, for the first time, the days and 

hours of educational programs – consisting of credit-granting courses and classroom instruction through grade 12 – 

at justice facilities. 

Justice facilities are short- and long-term public or private facilities 

(including correctional facilities, detention centers, jails, and prisons) 

that confine (before or after adjudication or conviction) juveniles 

under 18 years of age, adults who are 18 years of age and older, or 

both; however, the CRDC included data only from justice facilities 

confining individuals up to 21 years of age. 

s	 On average, justice facilities report offering 26 hours per week 

of educational programming during their regular school year. 

But more than one in seven (15 percent) offers less than 20 

hours per week during the school year – which is less than four 

hours each day in a five-day week. 

s	 More than one in five justice facilities (21 percent) reports 

having fewer than 180 days in a regular school year, and one in 

20 (5 percent) reports having fewer than 170 days. 

Teacher and Staffing Equity 

Black, Latino, and American Indian or Alaska Native students are 

more likely to attend schools with higher concentrations of 

inexperienced teachers: 

s	 7 percent of black students, 6 percent of Latino students, and 

6 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native students attend 

schools where more than 20 percent of teachers are in their 

first year of teaching, compared to 3 percent of white students 

and 3 percent of Asian students. 

Most high school students have access to a school counselor: About 95 percent of high school students have access to at 

least one school counselor. 

s	 But 21 percent of high schools and about 850,000 high school 

students nationwide do not have access to any school counselor. 

s 1.6 million students attend a school with a SLEO, but not a 

school counselor. 
16

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

During FY 2016, OCR issued five policy guidance documents 

addressing issues ranging from the needs of students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to gender equity in career 

and technical education in career and technical education (CTE) 

(see Figure 11). 

These documents serve to assist schools and other educational 

institutions receiving federal financial assistance in understanding 

how OCR interprets and enforces federal civil rights laws. In some 

instances, the guidance OCR issues directly responds to emerging 

trends reflected in the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC); requests OCR receives for technical assistance; compliance issues 

in career and technical education programs as identified through 

the Methods of Administration program; and OCR’s own complaint 

investigations and compliance reviews. When appropriate, OCR 

issues guidance jointly with other civil rights offices, such as the 

Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). 

Educational institutions may use OCR’s policy guidance to help 

understand the law, adjusting their own policies and practices to 

enhance civil rights protections for students and avoid civil rights 

violations, which can reduce the need for OCR enforcement. 

Students, families, and communities often utilize OCR’s guidance to 

better understand students’ civil rights. OCR continued to engage 

with relevant stakeholders while developing policy guidance to 

ensure that its guidance continues to reflect and respond to issues 

schools and students may confront. In FY 2016, OCR held 72 listening sessions addressing topics across all substantive areas OCR 

enforces, and included representatives from leading education and 

civil rights organizations across the country.

Policy Guidance: An Overview 

STATUTE ISSUE/RELEASE DATE DESCRIPTION

Title VI Use of Race/Diversity 

September 30, 2016

Clarifies the ruling made by the U.S. Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas at 

Austin (Fisher II) and reiterates the continued support of the Departments of Education 

and Justice for the voluntary use of race and ethnicity to achieve diversity in education

Title IX Voluntary Youth Service Organizations 

December 15, 2015 

Explains the circumstances under which a school district lawfully may work with 

outside organizations that provide single-sex programming 

Rights of Transgender Students*

May 13, 2016 (released jointly with DOJ) 

Discusses schools’ Title IX obligations regarding transgender students and explains 

how the Departments evaluate a school’s compliance with these obligations

Gender Equity in Career and Technical Education 

June 15, 2016 (released jointly with Office for Career, 

Technical, and Adult Education)

Reiterates that all students, regardless of their sex, must have equal access to the full 

range of CTE programs offered

Section 504/Title II Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

July 26, 2016

Clarifies the obligation of schools to provide students with ADHD with equal educational 

opportunity 

* This guidance is the subject of litigation against several federal agencies and officials pending before a federal district court in Texas v. United States, 7:16-cv00054 (N.D.Tex. 2016). On August 21, and October 18, 2016, the court issued a preliminary injunction and clarification order, respectively, regarding the Departments’ ability to rely on parts of the May 13 guidance related to “intimate” facilities. The Departments have appealed the August 21 and October 18 rulings to the 

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Texas v. United States, No. 16-11534 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016). In the meantime, OCR has taken steps to ensure compliance with 

the preliminary injunction, as clarified. Since the ruling in Texas, several other courts have issued preliminary injunctions in favor of individual transgender plaintiffs 

under Title IX or denied preliminary injunctions sought against the government. See, e.g., Students & Parents for Privacy v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 16-cv-4945, 

ECF No. 134 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2016); Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 16-cv-943, ECF No. 10 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 22, 2016); Highland Bd. of Ed. v. 

U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 2016 WL 5372349, at *11 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2016); Carcaño v. McCrory, No. 1:16-cv-236, ECF No. 127 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 2016). The only 

court of appeals to consider the issue held that OCR’s interpretation of its Title IX regulations was the result of its “fair and considered judgment,” and was “in line 

with the existing guidances and regulations of a number of federal agencies.” See G.G. v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709, 720 (4th Cir. 2016), mandate 

recalled and stayed, Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. G.G., No. 16A52 (Aug. 3, 2016), cert. granted, No. 16-273 (Oct. 28, 2016).

Figure 11: Policy Guidance Issued in FY 2016
17

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on 

the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities 

operated by recipients of federal funds. It states: “No person in the 

United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, 

be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 

subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving 

Federal financial assistance.” In the education arena, Title VI’s protections apply to all public elementary and secondary schools and 

colleges and universities—public or private—that receive federal 

financial assistance. Its protections extend to all aspects of these 

institutions’ programs and activities. When enforcing Title VI, OCR 

works to ensure equal access to education services and benefits 

and to prevent acts of retaliation against those who report Title VI 

violations. 

Policy Guidance: During FY 2016, OCR issued a Questions and 

Answers document detailing the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher II) and reiterating the 

continued support of the Departments of Education and Justice 

for the voluntary use of race and ethnicity to achieve diversity in 

education. 

Technical Assistance: Educators, as well as parents and students, should have the knowledge and skills to identify, prevent, 

Title VI: Discrimination Based on Race, 

Color, or National Origin

Guidance on Voluntary Use of Race 

in Admissions

On September 30, 2016, OCR issued a Questions and 

Answers document that provides information regarding the 

U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas 

at Austin (Fisher II) and reiterates the support of the Departments of Education and Justice for the voluntary use of race 

and ethnicity to engender diversity in education. The Q&A: 

• explains that, in its 2016 Fisher II ruling, the U.S. Supreme 

Court upheld the ability of public colleges and universities 

to use applicants’ race as a factor in admissions when 

such use is narrowly tailored to further a compelling 

interest;

• clarifies that the 2011 guidance documents issued by the 

Departments of Education and Justice about the voluntary 

use of race in K-12 and postsecondary institutions remain 

in effect; and

• reiterates the Departments’ commitment to supporting 

diversity in education.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Admissions

Assignment of Students

Desegregation

Different Treatment/Exclusion/Denial of Benefits

Discipline

Employment

English Learners

Extracurricular Activities 

Financial Assistance/Retention

Graduation Requirements 

Minorities in Special Education

Racial Harassment 

Recruitment

Resource Equity and Comparability 

Retaliation

Access to STEM/College and Career Readiness*

Other 

Total Number of Complaints Raising Title VI Issues, FY 2016 = 2,439 

Note: A single complaint can raise multiple issues; therefore, the total 

number of issues raised will exceed the number of complaints received.

* STEM refers to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. College and 

Career Readiness refers to access to high-level, college preparatory courses and 

rigorous curricula, such as honors and Advanced Placement (AP) courses. 

212

9

20

3

548

569

69

265

201

99

41

37

7

60

25

976

2

Figure 12: Number of Title VI Issues Raised in OCR Complaints (FY 2016)
18

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

and address discrimination, or get help when it does occur. Every 

year, OCR provides technical assistance to schools and communities around the country on both longstanding and emerging civil 

rights issues. In FY 2016, OCR engaged in nearly 100 technical 

assistance events on Title VI-related issues. These events included 

presentations on OCR’s discipline guidance package and technical 

assistance on issues faced by English learner (EL) students.

Enforcement: In FY 2016, OCR received nearly 2,450 Title VI-related complaints and launched seven systemic, proactive investigations (compliance reviews) that, collectively, address a broad 

range of Title VI-related issues in institutions across the nation 

(see Figure 12). These issues range from allegations of discrimination against EL students to allegations of differential disciplinary 

policy on the basis of race. Over the course of the fiscal year, OCR 

resolved 2,218Title VI complaints.

The following cases are illustrative of OCR’s investigatory work over 

the past year to enforce Title VI. These cases were selected to portray the diversity of issues, complainants, institutions, geographical 

regions, and remedies in OCR’s enforcement work. They represent 

a small portion of OCR’s total number of resolutions in FY 2016, 

and comprise only cases that resulted in a resolution agreement or 

Early Complaint Resolution (ECR) (see page 21 for an explanation of 

ECR) between October 1, 2015 and September 30, 2016. 

Combating Harassment on the Basis of Race, 

Color, or National Origin

John Doe School District7: In March 2016, OCR resolved a 

complaint alleging that a student perceived to be Arab American 

was subjected to a hostile environment created by repeated acts 

of harassment based on perceived national origin and race. Shortly 

after the student began to wear a hijab, the student alleged that she 

was the target of a series of public, humiliating acts of both verbal 

and physical harassment by other students. These incidents, which 

led to the student leaving the district, included being referred to as 

a “terrorist” in school hallways. OCR found that, while the school did 

respond to each individual incident and indicated that the student 

had access to a guidance counselor and a peer mentor, the school 

treated each incident as isolated rather than also addressing the 

broader hostile climate of the school. Additionally, OCR found that 

there were no efforts to extend counseling to the impacted student 

despite the school’s awareness of the degree to which the harassment upset her. To remedy the hostile environment, the district 

entered into a resolution agreement with OCR that requires it to 

revise its definition of harassment in its policies; release a statement supporting its commitment to combating harassment; provide 

prompt trainings about harassment to teachers, administrators and 

students; and invite the student to return to the district. Additionally, 

the agreement required the district to develop a climate survey to 

administer in the student’s former school and to plan additional 

steps based on the results. 

John Doe School District8: In May 2016, OCR resolved a 

complaint alleging that the district was aware of racially based 

harassment of a black student by multiple peers but failed to take 

appropriate action to address it. The student described making 

multiple reports to school officials about being the target of racial 

slurs and negative social media posts to which the school did not 

respond. After an incident in which the student reported being 

called a racial slur – resulting in a fight between her and two of 

the students accused of harassing her – the student’s parent filed 

a written complaint with the school. The school disciplined the two 

other students for their participation in the fight but not for racial 

harassment, and the school did not formally investigate the written 

complaint submitted on behalf of the student. OCR concluded that 

the school did not promptly or equitably investigate a complaint 

of harassment of which it had notice and did not take adequate 

steps to remedy the hostile environment to which the student was 

subjected. To address this noncompliance, the district entered into 

a resolution agreement that requires the district to take action to 

end and reverse the effects of the hostile environment, such as 

through providing academic support and counseling and a contact 

person to whom the student can reach out with further concerns if 

she chooses to re-enroll; revise its policies and procedures; document any future reports of racial harassment; and conduct training 

sessions on racial harassment for students and employees.

Albuquerque Public Schools (NM): In March 2016, OCR 

resolved a complaint alleging that the district discriminated on 

the basis of national origin by failing to respond adequately to the 

complainant’s claims of harassment of students and parents by 

school teachers. Specifically, the complainant alleged that several 

staff members belittled students and parents of Latino descent in 
19

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

ALSO: See John Doe Tribal School, p. 38 (combating 

harassment on the bases of race and disability status)

their tone and speech. During the course of the investigation, OCR 

found that the district did not investigate the allegations about the 

harassment of Spanish-speaking students and parents. Additionally, OCR found that the school district discriminated on the basis 

of national origin by failing to provide the school’s English learners 

with language development services taught by teachers with the 

appropriate state-required education endorsements (coursework 

taken either as a part of a teacher certificate program or after 

regular certificate has been obtained) for the 2014-15 school year. 

In its resolution agreement with OCR, the district agreed to revise 

its policies and procedures and provide staff training on how to respond to allegations of harassment. Moreover, the district agreed to 

designate an administrator or consultant to review all complaints of 

national origin/racial harassment and identify if actions are needed 

to redress the effects of a hostile environment. The district took 

steps to redress issues regarding language development staffing by 

hiring qualified and appropriately endorsed teachers for the 2015-

16 school year and also agreed to develop a team knowledgeable 

about student and English language acquisition instruction to 

individually assess the amount of compensatory services needed, if 

any, for each EL student, and to draft an action plan to offer these 

services.

Melrose Public Schools (MA): In January 2016, OCR resolved a 

complaint alleging that a student was subjected to harassment on 

the basis of race. After investigation, OCR found that a teacher publicly chided a black student—attending school in the district under 

a voluntary integration effort—for allegedly engaging in “plantation” behavior. The comment, as well as subsequent comments 

the teacher made in a meeting held among the student, teacher, 

and principal, directly analogized the student’s interaction with the 

teacher to the relationship between a master and slave. The district, 

through its own investigation into the incident, concluded that, while 

the comment was in poor judgment, it did not constitute harassment or create a hostile environment. However, OCR established 

that, while there were conflicting reports of the teacher’s exact 

phrasing, the student was twice addressed with a racially charged 

term in a way that isolated and humiliated the student with no motivation other than the student’s race. OCR also concluded that the 

district’s investigation did not fully examine the teacher’s conduct, 

or its impact on the student or other students, and that the district 

failed to take interim measures to support the affected student. 

OCR also cited the district’s failure during its internal investigation 

to document reports and meetings, or to interview student and staff 

witnesses; given this, OCR found that the student was subject to a 

hostile environment. To remedy this, the district agreed to identify 

a Title VI coordinator, design and implement a program of effective 

training for both staff and students to address discrimination and 

harassment under Title VI, and promptly and effectively investigate 

all complaints.

John Doe School District9

: In August 2016, OCR resolved a 

complaint alleging that the district discriminated against a student, 

who was a recent immigrant to the United States, on the basis 

of national origin when he was assaulted by classmates and was 

told “Welcome to America” during the assault. OCR also investigated whether the district failed to provide meaningful access to 

important information about the alleged assault in a language the 

student’s parent could understand. OCR learned that, after the 

assault—as a result of which the student received severe injuries—the student’s mother had a meeting with an administrator at 

which the school asked a school employee, who was not trained in 

providing interpretation, to interpret for the student and his mother. 

During the investigation, OCR had concerns that the district had not 

followed its own grievance procedures following the assault and 

failed to determine whether the assault was motivated by the student’s national origin, whether a hostile climate existed as a result 

of the incident, and whether the student needed any support upon 

his return to school. OCR was further concerned that the school 

employee who provided interpretation and obtained a statement 

from the student following the incident did not have appropriate 

training to provide oral interpretation. The district entered into a 

resolution agreement with OCR in which the district agreed to develop guidance and provide training on discriminatory harassment, 

develop a written procedure describing how parents may request 

interpretation or translation services, and create individualized support and tutoring plans for the student (who subsequently dropped 

out of the school) should the student re-enroll in the district.

Protecting the Equal Rights of All Students 

to Attend Public School Regardless of 

Immigration or Citizenship Status

Alamo Heights Independent School District (TX): In March 

2016, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that the district discriminated against students on the basis of national origin by requiring 

the student’s social security card and the parent’s driver’s license 

for students seeking enrollment, thereby discouraging noncitizen 

students from enrolling. OCR’s investigation identified an additional 

compliance concern regarding the recipient’s stated policy requiring 

a student’s birth certificate for new student enrollment. After OCR 

advised the district of this concern and prior to the completion of 

OCR’s investigation, the district made changes to its enrollment policy to allow new students to submit any document from an expanded list of legal or school documents to show proof of identity and 

age to ensure the district’s enrollment policies and practices do not 

discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Specifically, OCR’s resolution ensured that the district’s enrollment policies 

and practices do not chill or discourage the participation, or lead 

to the exclusion, of students based on their or their parents’ actual 

or perceived citizenship and/or immigration status. OCR confirmed 

that the enrollment policy had been changed to allow alternative 

documents to establish the identity and age of a student. 
20

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent School District (TX): 

In October 2015, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that the district 

discriminated against Mexican nationals by requiring them, without 

exception, to produce a birth certificate in order to enroll in district 

schools. Additionally, the complaint alleged that the district does 

not provide equal educational opportunities to EL students due to 

its failure to appropriately assess and place students in their proper 

classes. Before the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, the district 

voluntarily entered into a resolution agreement to address the concerns raised in the complaint. The agreement commits the district 

to provide staff training on the use of home language surveys and 

to develop additional methods of identifying EL students, such as 

teacher referrals, to ensure that every student with a primary home 

language other than English will be appropriately identified and 

assessed. Further, the district agreed to provide similar training on 

the administration of placement assessments; review and revise 

enrollment policies and publish them in English and Spanish; affirm 

that multiple documents besides a birth certificate are acceptable 

forms of identification; and provide compensatory services for any 

student not properly identified or placed in appropriate classes or 

programs.

Ensuring Nondiscrimination in School Closures

Newark Public Schools (NJ): In December 2015, OCR resolved 

three complaints alleging that Newark Public Schools discriminated 

against black and Latino students and students with disabilities by 

closing several schools at the end of the 2011-12 and 2013-14 

school years. OCR conducted a statistical analysis and determined 

that the number of black students and students with disabilities 

affected by the school closings in the district at the end of the 

2011-12 school year was disproportionately large in comparison 

to white and other students, but that the number of affected Latino 

students was not disproportionately large. Based on data obtained 

during OCR’s investigation, there were indications that the students 

from the closed schools may have been academically harmed by 

the closures. Prior to OCR’s completing its investigation, the district 

voluntarily committed to resolve the complaint by entering into 

a resolution agreement requiring it to develop and complete an 

assessment of the academic performance of transferring students; 

compare the academic performance of transferring students at 

the receiving schools to other students; develop and complete 

an assessment of transportation services provided to transferring 

students; develop and complete an assessment of pupil capacity and the availability of facilities and resources at the receiving 

schools; convene a group of knowledgeable persons to complete an 

assessment of the continuation of services to transferring students 

with disabilities; and provide compensatory services to all transferred students with disabilities whom the group determines require 

compensatory services.

Ensuring Equal Access to Educational 

Opportunities and Resources 

Toledo Public Schools (OH): In January 2016, OCR resolved a 

compliance review of Toledo Public Schools undertaken to assess 

whether the district was providing black students with equal access 

to educational resources. Prior to the completion of the investigation, the district entered a resolution agreement to ensure that students have equal resources, particularly with respect to experienced 

teachers, teachers with master’s degrees, effective and qualified 

building leaders, libraries and library resources, and live instruction 

for higher level distance learning courses. The district agreed to 

complete a comprehensive evaluation of established professional 

development programs for teachers and school leaders to ensure 

equitable distribution of effective and qualified teachers throughout 

the district; provide more access to live instruction for students 

taking higher level distance learning courses; and develop a master 

library staffing schedule designed to ensure that all students can 

access school libraries with the same frequency, and can check 

out the same number of books, as other students throughout the 

district.

Ensuring Equal Opportunities for 

English Learners

East Ramapo Central School District (NY): In October 2015, 

OCR resolved a complaint against the district, which was alleged 

to have discriminated on the bases of race and national origin by 

offering out-of-district placements to white disabled students at a 

higher rate than to similarly situated non-white disabled students 

and by providing white EL students with language services and 

programs that it did not provide for Spanish-speaking EL students. 

OCR’s investigation found a statistically significant disproportionate number of white disabled students placed out-of-district in 

the 2010-11 school year. Additionally, OCR determined that the 

“Today’s announcement is a step in the right 

direction for Toledo schools and a sign that 

the district is taking the civil rights of its black 

students more seriously. Without the Department 

of Education’s proactive review of Toledo’s 

compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

these changes would not be on the horizon.” 

NANCY ZIRKIN

Executive Vice President, The Leadership Conference 

On Civil And Human Rights, January 2016
21

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

district offered a half-day special education kindergarten class in 

Yiddish but no other kindergarten classes that were conducted in a 

language other than English. Prior to OCR’s completing its investigation, the district entered into a resolution agreement committing 

the district to develop and adopt guidelines to ensure that it does 

not discriminate on the basis of race or national origin when determining a placement pursuant to a disabled student’s Individualized 

Education Plan (IEP) or Section 504 plan; provide documentation to 

OCR regarding the placement of each student with a disability and 

the student’s race/national origin for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 

school years; and develop and adopt a policy and procedure for 

identifying all EL students in the district, as well as for maintaining a 

sufficient number of certified, trained teachers and staff to implement an alternative language program for EL students. 

Jefferson Parish Public Schools (LA): In October 2015, OCR 

entered into a resolution agreement with the district after two 

separate complainants alleged discrimination against EL students 

based on their national origin by failing to provide them with equal 

educational opportunities. OCR investigated whether the district 

failed to provide equal educational opportunities to national-origin-minority EL students by failing to provide appropriate staffing 

and staff development in its alternative language program, and 

improperly placing and exiting EL students, in violation of Title VI. 

When reviewing the district’s ESL (English as a Second Language) 

and paraprofessional staff at its schools, OCR identified concerns 

regarding inconsistent or high student-to-teacher ratios for EL 

students and a lack of information to conclude whether or not the 

district designated paraprofessionals to service EL students. Prior 

to the conclusion of the investigation, the district entered into a 

resolution agreement committing the district to assess whether 

it has sufficient qualified teachers and staff support to run its 

alternative language program, hire additional certified alternative 

language program teachers if necessary, improve its evaluation 

of ESL teachers, provide training for teachers and teachers’ aides 

on ESL instructional methodologies, revise its policies and monitor 

student progress to ensure proper identification for and exiting from 

alternative language instruction, and report to OCR on progress 

made in these areas. 

Arizona Department of Education (AZ): In April and May of 

2016, OCR, in partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ), 

entered into two voluntary resolution agreements with the Arizona 

Department of Education (ADE) ensuring correct identification of 

EL students as well as language support services for students who 

had been either prematurely exited from or incorrectly identified as 

not requiring these services. These resolution agreements came 

as a direct result of OCR’s and DOJ’s monitoring of a prior 2012 

resolution agreement with ADE. The prior resolution agreement 

addressed the OCR/DOJ finding that the criteria for testing English 

proficiency led to thousands of EL students being prematurely 

classified as English proficient and removed from EL services, as 

well as students seeking initial placement for EL services who 

were incorrectly labelled as English proficient and denied services 

altogether. The 2012 agreement expressly contemplated evaluation 

of progress during monitoring and securing additional steps as 

necessary, and, in the course of this monitoring, OCR’s and DOJ’s 

analysis showed that, without additional remedies, thousands of EL 

students across the state each year would not be served effectively. 

The new agreements require ADE to raise its proficiency criteria for 

English proficiency tests, retest and provide support services for 

potentially affected students, and submit testing reports and results 

to OCR and DOJ for the next three school years. 

OCR Early Complaint Resolutions 

To facilitate the expeditious resolution of allegations of 

discrimination, OCR offers Early Complaint Resolution (ECR), 

a voluntary mediation process designed to bring parties together to agree on appropriate next steps. In ECR cases, OCR 

serves as an impartial, confidential facilitator between the 

complainant and the institution rather than directly negotiating with the institution to reach an agreement to resolve the 

case. ECR is designed to occur early in the case investigation 

process. OCR will monitor the process of ECRs to ensure 

adequate time for completion of OCR’s investigation in the 

event that ECR is unsuccessful. Where ECR is unsuccessful, 

OCR proceeds with investigation of the complaint allegations 

to ensure timely resolution of the case. 

In FY 2016, OCR resolved 309 complaints through ECR, comprising 28 percent of complaints that resulted in substantive 

civil rights changes by or agreements with recipients and four 

percent of all complaints resolved. Most typically, substantive 

resolutions achieved through ECR addressed the following 

issues: 

• Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) (136) 

• Different treatment/exclusion/denial of benefits (42) 

• Retaliation (44) 

• Academic adjustments (41) 

On average, ECR cases took approximately 136 days to reach 

agreement between the parties, compared to an average of 

244 days for non-ECR cases that resulted in substantive civil 

rights changes or agreements. Although the shortened timeline to achieve resolutions was the result of multiple factors 

(including the fact that more complex cases tend not to be 

selected for ECR) and not the ECR process alone, the ECR 

process expedited the resolution of certain cases that might 

have taken longer to resolve if they were to go through regular 

processing – while still achieving substantive changes and 

remedies for complainants, as chronicled in several enforcement resolution descriptions in this report.

ECR cases in this report are listed under a "John Doe" school, 

college, or university, and appear on pages 22, 31, and 34. 
22

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

Salt Lake City School District (UT): In August 2016, OCR 

resolved this complaint alleging that the district discriminated on 

the bases of national origin and disability. Specifically, the complainant alleged that the district discriminated against EL students 

at a middle school by implementing policies and procedures that 

do not consider language in the special education evaluation and 

placement processes, thereby resulting in an overrepresentation 

of the students in special education. During the investigation, staff 

acknowledged the use of the phrase “special education trumps EL 

services” by some district staff, and that some EL students with 

disabilities were not provided EL and special education services. 

OCR also had concerns that special education-related matters were 

not consistently interpreted or translated for EL parents, that the 

district’s EL policies and procedures include a process for early 

exiting of students from EL services despite their not being proficient in the four English skill areas, and that several EL students 

should have been but were not monitored following their exit from 

the EL program. To resolve the complaint, the district entered into a 

resolution agreement committing the district to update its policies 

and procedures regarding the evaluation and placement of EL students to ensure that EL students are not overrepresented in special 

education and are not placed in special education solely based 

on English language ability; evaluate whether EL students already 

receiving special education have been appropriately placed in 

special education and, if not, return them to the regular education 

setting; ensure that EL students with disabilities who did not receive 

appropriate instruction from qualified teachers are assessed for and 

receive compensatory services; ensure meaningful communication 

with parents, especially with limited English proficient (LEP) parents 

related to special education matters; and review its EL plan to ensure that students are not exited from the EL program prematurely. 

John Doe School District10: In April 2016, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that the district discriminated against a parent on the 

basis of national origin (Korean) when the district did not provide 

information about its investigation and discipline of a student to a 

parent in a language that the student’s parent could understand, 

and on the bases of race and national origin when the district 

refused to speak with the parent and the security personnel were 

hostile to the parent and grandparent during the investigation of the 

student’s conduct. Prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation, 

the district entered into an Early Complaint Resolution agreement 

with the complainant, committing the district to translate school 

discipline documents into the parent’s native language by the 

beginning of the 2016-17 school year, provide training to school 

administrators on appropriate professional communications, and 

provide language and interpreter services as required by Title VI. 

ALSO: See Albuquerque Public Schools (NM), p. 18 

(harassment on the basis of national origin and ensuring 

equal opportunities for English learners)

ALSO: See Los Fresnos Consolidated Independent 

School District (TX), p. 20 (protecting equal rights regardless of immigration or citizenship status and ensuring equal 

opportunities for English learners)

Combating Discriminatory Discipline 

Lodi Unified School District (CA): In August 2016, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a black student was discriminated 

against on the basis of race when he was disciplined more harshly 

than a white student. The white student called the black student a 

racial epithet, and the black student beat up the white student in 

response on the following day. OCR’s investigation raised concerns 

because the district had identified the behaviors as having similar 

consequences but a harsher punishment was applied to the black 

student. The investigation also raised concerns about the school’s 

overrepresentation of black students receiving discipline at all levels 

compared to white students. OCR found that the district allowed 

school sites to deviate from the district-wide conduct policy—permitting more and less harsh discipline to be imposed at particular 

school sites and discretion regarding which policy to follow for 

particular students—which contrasted with the district’s policy goal 

to ensure consistency across schools. Additionally, some school site 

policies permitted imposition of discipline that was not in compliance with state law. Black students were almost seven times more 

likely than white students to receive in- or out-of-school suspension for tardiness or truancy in 2014-15, even though suspending 

students for these reasons is not permitted by California state law. 

OCR found that such deviations from policy and law had a disparate, adverse impact on black students in violation of Title VI and its 

implementing regulations. OCR also identified concerns regarding 

different treatment of black students districtwide and the district’s 

response to peer racial harassment. The agreement requires the 

district to provide student-focused remedies such as supports and 

interventions, as well as early intervention for at-risk students; issue 

written guidance and training regarding racial harassment; identify 

the root causes for the district’s racial disparities; develop a way 

to distinguish between those disciplinary infractions appropriately 

handled by school staff and serious threats to school safety or criminal conduct that might be best handled by law enforcement; revise 

its Memoranda of Understanding with local police departments to 

include clear definitions and limits to the role of school resource 

officers (SROs) in their interactions with students; and collect data 

on SRO involvement in discipline.

Oklahoma City Public Schools (OK): In April 2016, OCR resolved 

an investigation of the district to determine whether the district 

discriminated against black students in its administration of student 
23

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

discipline. The data showed that black students were significantly 

overrepresented in all of the district’s disciplinary actions. For the 

2014-15 school year, black students accounted for 42 percent of 

in-school suspensions although they represented only 26 percent 

of the student population. Likewise, for the 2011-12 school year, 

black students received in-school and out-of-school suspensions, 

were referred to law enforcement, and were arrested for school-related incidents at a disproportionately high rate when compared 

to their enrollment in the district. In addition, OCR’s review of the 

district’s discipline practices revealed concerns about incomplete or inconsistent recordkeeping, data collection, provision of 

due process rights, administration of discipline, and information 

provided to parents of suspended students, as well as a lack of 

clarity in disciplinary sanctions such as “defiance of authority” or 

“disrespect.” Prior to the conclusion of the investigation, the district 

created the Office of School Climate and Student Discipline, hired a 

director of school climate and student discipline and three student 

behavior specialists, and began implementing training on Positive 

Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in schools. To remedy 

the remaining issues, the district also agreed to review and revise 

its discipline policies, practices, and discipline code; provide annual 

training on discipline for staff; and implement student committees 

and working groups that allow students, parents, and community 

leaders to make suggestions to help improve the effectiveness of 

the district’s discipline policies, practices, and procedures.

John Doe School District11: In April 2016, OCR resolved a 

complaint that alleged that the district discriminated against a black 

student based on race when it suspended the student for ten days 

for engaging in a physical altercation with a white student, resulting 

in criminal charges being filed against him for assault and battery, 

whereas the white student received an overnight suspension that 

did not result in any days missed from 

school for the infraction of “altercation/confrontation.” Following the incident, the principal met with the SRO 

and reported to OCR that, based on 

the severity of the injuries to the white 

student, the principal “recommended” 

that the SRO charge the black student 

with assault and battery but recommended against charging the white 

student because “he did not think he 

should be charged.” During OCR’s 

investigation, the school amended 

the black student’s discipline record 

to reflect the same offense as was 

charged the white student. Prior to 

the completion of OCR’s investigation, 

the district entered into a resolution 

agreement with OCR that requires 

the district to conduct training for all 

school administrators explaining their 

obligations under Title VI, including the 

appropriate delineation of responsibilities between school officials 

and SROs. The agreement clarifies that, while the final decision as 

to what charges to file against students is at the sole discretion of 

the SRO, the SRO should not handle possible violations of school 

policy or the student code of conduct or otherwise be involved in 

routine discipline issues unless it is necessary for the safe operation of the school.

K-6 Charter Academy (CA): In November 2015, OCR resolved 

a complaint that the school discriminated against a student on 

the basis of race when it formally suspended him and used early 

dismissal of the student as a response to misbehavior. The school 

did not consider such dismissals to be disciplinary and therefore 

did not maintain records related to these incidents. OCR found 

that the school did not create a racially hostile environment for the 

student. However, OCR indicated the school’s removal of students 

for disciplinary reasons without due process or recordkeeping 

raised concerns because this practice made it impossible for 

the school to determine whether it was meeting its obligation of 

ensuring nondiscrimination with respect to discipline. OCR also had 

concerns whether the school was consistently following its own 

discipline procedures. The resolution agreement requires the school 

to discontinue the practice of sending students home informally, to 

review its discipline practices and procedures, and to develop and 

implement a recordkeeping system that tracks all disciplinary incidents. The school has created a discipline committee in response to 

the student’s internal complaint; the committee is charged, among 

other tasks, with investigating perceptions among students that students of particular races are treated more favorably by the school’s 

administrators. 
24

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) states: “No 

person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded 

from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to 

discrimination under any education program or activity receiving 

Federal financial assistance.” Title IX applies to recipients of federal 

financial assistance, including colleges, universities, and public 

school districts. OCR enforces Title IX to ensure that students have 

equal access to educational opportunity. 

Policy Guidance: During FY 2016, OCR issued three guidance 

documents or packages that address Title IX: (1) a Dear Colleague

letter outlining the circumstances under which a school district 

lawfully may work with outside organizations that provide single-sex 

programming, (2) a joint Dear Colleague letter with the Department 

of Justice (DOJ) discussing schools’ Title IX obligations regarding 

transgender students and explaining how the Departments evaluate a school’s compliance with these obligations12 and (3) a Dear 

Colleague letter reiterating schools’ obligations to ensure equal 

access to all students, regardless of sex, to the full range of career 

and technical education (CTE) programs offered. 

Technical Assistance: Educators, parents, and students should 

have the knowledge and skills to identify, prevent, and address 

discrimination or get help when it does occur. Every year, OCR provides technical assistance to schools and communities around the 

country on both longstanding and emerging civil rights issues. In 

FY 2016, OCR engaged in 110 technical assistance events on Title 

IX-related issues. These events included presentations on the rights 

of pregnant and parenting students under Title IX and the responsibilities of schools to respond to sexual violence under Title IX. 

Enforcement: In FY 2016, OCR received 7,747 (of which 6,157 

are multiple complaints from an individual) Title IX–related complaints and launched four proactive investigations (compliance 

reviews) that, collectively, address a broad range of Title IX-related 

issues across the nation, including sexual violence at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels; equal access to athletic 

opportunities; and harassment (see Figure 13). Over the course of 

FY 2016, OCR resolved 1,346 Title IX complaints. 

The following cases are illustrative of OCR’s investigatory work over 

the past year to enforce Title IX. These cases were selected to portray the diversity of issues, complainants, institutions, geographical 

regions, and remedies in OCR’s enforcement work. They represent 

a small portion of OCR’s total number of resolutions in FY 2016, 

and comprise only cases that resulted in a resolution agreement or 

Early Complaint Resolution (ECR) (see page 21 for an explanation of 

ECR) between October 1, 2015 and September 30, 2016. 

Eradicating Sexual Harassment 

and Sexual Violence

John Doe School District13: In April 2016, OCR resolved a Title 

IX complaint alleging that the district failed to adequately respond 

to a student’s allegation of sexual harassment and sexual assault. 

The student alleged that she was sexually assaulted by a group of 

male students in the boys’ locker room. After investigation, OCR 

Title IX: Discrimination Based on Sex 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 6000 7000

Total Number of Complaints Raising Title IX Issues, FY 2016 = 7,747 Note: A single complaint can raise multiple issues; therefore, the total 

number of issues raised will exceed the number of complaints received.

32

396

5

141

12

22

23

130

346

673

195

61

6,251

Admissions

Athletics

Different Treatment/Exclusion/Denial of Benefits

Discipline

Dissemination of Policy

Employment

Financial Assistance/Scholarships

Grading 

Pregnancy/Parenting 

Procedural Requirements 

Retaliation

Sexual/Gender Harassment/Sexual Violence

Other 

Figure 13: Number of Title IX Issues Raised in OCR Complaints, by Issue (FY 2016)
25

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

found that the district failed to provide an adequate response to 

prevent the recurrence, and remedy the effects, of sexual harassment by not offering the student academic services or any kind 

of safety plan to ensure her safety upon her return to school after 

she was assaulted; by aggravating the hostile environment when 

it sent a misleading notification to all parents that the incident, as 

reported to police, was false, after which other students started 

spreading rumors and avoided the student; and by not disciplining 

the offending student for sexual harassment or assault, but rather 

for “disrespect” and “reckless endangerment.” OCR also found that 

the district, which has more than 125,000 students, did not have 

a Title IX coordinator at the time of the incident. To remedy these 

issues, the district entered into a resolution agreement with OCR 

committing the district to revise its policies and procedures and its 

Student Code of Conduct, designate a Title IX coordinator, revise 

and develop training curriculum for employees, conduct annual 

climate checks, and offer counseling and academic services for the 

student. 

Citrus College (CA): In June 2016, OCR resolved a complaint 

that alleged that student employees and customers at the college’s 

bookstore were being sexually harassed by a college employee who 

also worked there. The complaint further alleged that aspects of 

the college’s response were delayed and/or inadequate, although 

the college did eventually find through its investigation that the 

employee engaged in sexual harassment for a period of time and 

terminated his employment. OCR concurred with the college’s 

determination of sexual harassment but found the college noncompliant with Title IX due to procedural concerns. OCR found that 

affected students were not informed about the reasons for delays in 

the college’s investigation, there was a one month delay in providing interim measures, the college’s investigation was not sufficiently 

prompt, and the college failed to provide adequate notice of its nondiscrimination policy. OCR also found that the college’s grievance 

procedures did not include prompt timeframes, an equal opportunity to appeal, a prohibition against retaliation, or an explanation of 

the responsibilities of college staff to report sexual harassment and 

assault. To remedy the noncompliance, the agreement with OCR requires the college to revise its procedures, implement annual staff 

training regarding Title IX procedures, conduct mandatory training 

“Young women should be able to shatter the glass 

ceiling in manufacturing, engineering and other 

careers that are traditionally thought to be maleoriented. Kudos to the Department of Education 

for providing civil rights guidance to ensure 

equitable gender access and participation in career 

and technical education programs.” 

RANDI WEINGARTEN

President, American Federation of Teachers, June 2016
26

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

for new students and annual online training for continuing students, 

administer an anonymous survey at the bookstore, notify students 

who were employed at the bookstore since October 2009 of the results of the investigation and the availability of counseling services 

and other remedies, and inform OCR of any other complaints filed 

by students against the former employee or any other bookstore 

employee for the next year. 

Minot State University (ND): In July 2016, OCR resolved a 

complaint alleging that the university failed to respond adequately 

when given notice of sexual harassment and sexual assault of 

a student by a professor. The student alleged that the professor 

solicited sex and implied he would be able to prevent the student 

from achieving her professional goals. Further, the student alleged 

that the university did not respond to her initial complaint for over a 

month. OCR found that the university improperly halted its investigation when the accused professor resigned, did not offer interim 

measures such as a no contact order, and did not make a determination of whether the student was subjected to a hostile environment or issue a notice of findings. Additionally, OCR’s investigation 

revealed that, at the time of the complaint, the university did not 

have a designated Title IX coordinator; its policies, procedures, and 

notice of nondiscrimination were noncompliant; staff members 

charged with overseeing hearings or otherwise integral to resolving 

Title IX complaints were not properly trained; several other recent 

sexual misconduct cases were mishandled in that the investigatory 

process failed to adhere to stated school policy, denying complainants and accused students a prompt and equitable response 

to reports of sexual harassment and sexual violence. Additionally, 

when a student reported seven incidents of sexual harassment from 

two students, the university failed to interview one of the students, 

interviewed the other about only one of the incidents, failed to 

investigate the remaining incidents, did not provide interim services 

to the complainant, held a hearing that the accused students declined to attend, and imposed penalties including expulsion on the 

two students. A rehearing took place despite the lack of an appeal 

from the accused students, which resulted in the revocation of the 

expulsions without making any findings, and yet the complainant 

did not receive a right to appeal. To remedy the noncompliance, 

the university entered into a resolution agreement that requires it 

to retain an equity consultant, release a statement to the community about how to report instances of sexual harassment, revise its 

policies, properly train staff tasked with resolving Title IX complaints, 

retain an equity consultant proficient in Title IX and complete an 

assessment to determine whether the university has sufficient staff 

to investigate and resolve complaints, implement a standardized 

process for documenting investigations and reports, conduct periodic climate checks, and convene a committee to identify strategies 

to improve, review prior reports, and monitor the effectiveness of 

these programs.

Occidental College (CA): In June 2016, OCR resolved an 

investigation of whether the college adequately resolved internal 

complaints of sexual violence. OCR found that the college had 

developed legally compliant policies and procedures for addressing 

complaints of sexual harassment, appropriately disseminated a notice of nondiscrimination, and had trained its Title IX coordinator and 

investigators to address complaints of sexual harassment. However, 

OCR also identified several cases from the 2012-13 school year 

that were not resolved promptly and substantiated concerns that 

college staff were not aware of their responsibility to safeguard 

student speech and abstain from interfering with student advocacy. 

In several instances, the investigation raised concerns that college 

administrators acted to dissuade students from speaking out to ensure that reports of sexual violence were being addressed promptly 

and effectively on campus. The college agreed to adopt a newly 

revised misconduct policy and procedure; provide three years of 

complaint files to OCR and proactively review each complaint file to 

ensure that the college provides a prompt and equitable resolution 

of each complaint; develop and provide mandatory annual training 
27

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

Guidance on Rights of 

Transgender Students14

On May 13, 2016, OCR issued a Dear Colleague letter jointly 

with DOJ that explains a school’s (including elementary, 

secondary, and postsecondary institutions’) Title IX obligations 

regarding transgender students and how the Departments 

evaluate a school’s adherence to these standards. Specifically, 

the guidance explains a school’s obligations to:

• respond promptly and effectively to sex-based harassment 

of all students, including harassment based on a student’s 

actual or perceived gender identity, transgender status, or 

gender transition;

• treat students consistent with their gender identity even if 

their school records or identification documents indicate a 

different sex;

• allow students to participate in sex-segregated activities 

consistent with their gender identity; and

• protect students’ privacy related to their transgender 

status under Title IX and the Family Educational Rights and 

Privacy Act.

for staff and faculty on the grievance process, its implementation,

and their responsibilities to ensure that interference and retaliation 

do not occur for protected activities; and conduct an annual survey 

to monitor the school climate and address concerns raised.

Frostburg State University (MD): In September 2016, 

OCR resolved two complaints alleging that two students were 

discriminated against on the basis of sex when the university 

failed to adequately respond to their reports of sexual assault. The 

investigation found that the university violated Title IX with respect 

to both complaints and was not prompt or equitable in its responses to the majority of the 43 reports of sexual harassment and/or 

assault received between January 2011 and November 2014. The 

university’s Title IX coordinator only received notice of five of the 

43 reports in that time period and therefore could not provide Title 

IX coordination for the institution. With respect to one complainant, 

the university did not provide adequate interim measures to the student, and the Dean of Students told OCR investigators that he did 

not consider an accused student’s repeated violation of a no-contact order to be a form of sexual harassment. The resolution agreement requires the university to reimburse the two complainants 

for relevant expenses, review reports it had received to determine 

whether more relief should be provided, provide to OCR sexual harassment and assault reports the university receives on an annual 

basis through the monitoring of the case, change its policies and 
28

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

notice of nondiscrimination, provide training for the entire university 

community, and develop a committee to create a plan for educating 

students and staff about sexual harassment and sexual assault. 

Wesley College (DE): In September 2016, OCR resolved a 

complaint that the college discriminated against a student who 

had been accused of sexual misconduct. OCR determined that the 

college violated the Title IX rights of this student, along with three 

others also accused in the same incident, by failing to provide them 

with essential procedural protections and to adhere to the safeguards provided for in its own disciplinary policies and procedures. 

In this case, the accused student was not interviewed during the 

investigation of the complaint against him, but an interim suspension was imposed the same day as the college received the report 

against him. He was provided incorrect policies and procedures by 

the college, and he reported that he did not receive a copy of the 

incident report or information contained in the report prior to the 

hearing. In addition, the accused students were not afforded an 

opportunity for an interview during the investigation, and thus were 

not provided the opportunity to provide witnesses or other evidence 

during the investigation. The investigation further revealed a lack 

of notice to the community identifying the individual responsible 

for investigating and resolving Title IX complaints as well as other 

deficiencies in the college’s Title IX procedures. In the resolution 

agreement reached with OCR, the college committed to determine 

whether it engaged in a sufficient level of inquiry prior to imposing an interim suspension on the accused students, and provide 

specific remedial actions as warranted; complete its investigation of 

the incident and re-investigate or address investigative deficiencies, 

and provide remedies as warranted; publish an anti-harassment 

statement and revise Title IX grievance procedures; provide training 

to ensure that all members of the college community are trained 

regularly on Title IX requirements related to sexual harassment and 

sexual violence; enhance outreach to and feedback from students 

including by conducting campus climate surveys; and convene a 

Title IX committee to develop a plan to educate students and staff 

about sexual harassment and assault.

ALSO: See John Doe School District, p. 37 (ensuring 

appropriate educational support for students with disabilities 

and eradicating sexual harassment and sexual violence) 

Redressing Gender Identity Discrimination 

Dorchester County School District Two (SC)15: In June 2016, 

OCR resolved a complaint alleging that the district was discriminating against an elementary school transgender student by prohibiting 

her from using the girls’ restrooms at her school consistent with her 

gender identity and requiring that she use a private restroom in her 

school’s office or nurse’s station. The student’s female classmates 

took restroom breaks as a group, on their way to or from lunch or 

recess, while the student was required to leave the group to go 

to a private restroom. OCR found the district in violation of Title IX 

because the female transgender student was not given access to 

the girls’ bathroom consistent with her gender identity. However, 

OCR determined that the district’s policies and procedures complied with Title IX. The resolution agreement with OCR requires the 

district to provide the student with access to the girls’ bathrooms at 

her elementary school; provide the student and her parents with the 

option of requesting, at any point during the student’s enrollment 

in the district, that a support team be convened to ensure that the 

student’s access and opportunity to participate in all programs and 

activities is not denied or limited based on her gender identity, and 

Guidance on Gender Equity in Career 

and Technical Education

On June 15, 2016, OCR and the Office of Career, Technical, 

and Adult Education issued a Dear Colleague letter explaining 

that all students, regardless of their sex, must be provided 

equal access to the full range of career and technical education (CTE) programs offered in secondary and postsecondary 

institutions. The letter clarifies obligations under the laws 

enforced by the Department to ensure equity in access to 

these programs. It includes: 

• information on requirements and relevant data under the 

Perkins Act related to participation in non-traditional fields;

• an overview of the applicable legal obligations under 

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the 

Vocational Education Program Guidelines for Eliminating 

Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of Race, 

Color, National Origin, Sex, and Handicap; and

• practical examples of issues that may raise concerns 

regarding compliance with these legal obligations.
29

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

that she is otherwise protected from gender-based discrimination at 

school; revise its policies and procedures to include gender-based 

discrimination as a form of discrimination based on sex; and 

provide annual training to district- and school-level administrators 

on the district’s obligation to prevent and address gender-based 

discrimination.

Ensuring Equal Access to Athletic 

Opportunities and Benefits

School District of Superior (WI): In February 2016, OCR 

resolved a complaint filed against the school district alleging that 

the district subjected female athletes to discrimination on the basis 

of sex in the district’s high school interscholastic athletics program 

by failing to provide boys and girls with equal athletic facilities. 

OCR determined that the district did not meet its Title IX obligations because disparities existed in the quality of locker rooms 

and in the practice and competitive facilities provided to male and 

female sports teams. For example, the boys’ baseball team played 

on a turf field of excellent quality, whereas the girls’ softball team 

played on an inadequately maintained grass field that had holes 

and drainage problems and lacked proper fencing and the lighting 

needed for evening practice and games. To resolve these disparities, the district agreed to provide equal athletic opportunities for 

both sexes through the provision of locker rooms and practice and 

competitive facilities of equal quality. Further, the district agreed to 

conduct a self-assessment of the athletic facilities afforded to male 

and female athletes and develop a plan to address any disparities 

evidenced by the self-assessment. 

Erie Community College (NY): In March 2016, OCR resolved 

a complaint involving the provision of equal athletic opportunities 

to female students at the college. OCR’s investigation revealed 

substantial disparities between the enrollment of female students 

and their participation in collegiate athletics. For example, during 

the 2013-14 academic year, females constituted 48 percent of 

enrolled students, but only 33 percent of athletic participants. OCR 

Guidance on Voluntary Youth Service 

Organizations

On December 15, 2015, OCR issued a Dear Colleague letter

explaining school districts’ responsibilities under Title IX when 

partnering with outside organizations that provide single-sex 

programs to a school district’s students. Specifically, the 

guidance:

• reminds school districts that Title IX prohibits them from 

providing significant assistance to any outside organization 

that unlawfully discriminates on the basis of sex;

• explains that Title IX does not apply to the membership 

practices of voluntary youth service organizations;

• reiterates that membership in voluntary youth service 

organizations must be voluntary; and

• clarifies school districts’ obligation under Title IX to ensure 

that girls and boys have comparable educational opportunities overall.
30

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

found that the college had not established a history and continuing 

practice of athletic program expansion responsive to the interests 

of female students and that, although the college had increased the 

number of women’s sports since creating the women’s athletics 

program, it had also added several men’s sports teams, including 

a football team, just a few years prior to cutting several teams, 

including three women’s sports teams. OCR determined that since 

the 2009-10 academic year, five women’s teams had been cut, 

including the women’s swimming, diving, track, cross-country, 

and golf teams; that if women express an interest in a sport that 

is not offered, they are told that the sport is not available; and 

that women have expressed an interest in sports that had been 

eliminated. The college entered into a resolution agreement with 

OCR in which it committed to survey women in its student body to 

determine possible interest and ability in sports not offered by the 

college; consider any requests to college administrators, coaches, 

or staff to add a particular sport to the program or elevate a sport 

from a club or intramural sport to intercollegiate status; create and 

implement a nondiscriminatory policy or procedure for requesting 

the addition of sports and ensuring the effective communication of 

the policy or procedure to students and others; examine participation rates in sports in high schools, amateur athletic associations, 

and community sports leagues that operate in areas from which the 

college draws its students to determine possible additional sports 

for women; and, if the college identifies a sport or sports in which 

there is sufficient but unmet interest, add athletics opportunities 

until the school is fully accommodating the expressed interests and 

abilities of female students, or until the participation rate for female 

students is substantially proportionate to their rate of their enrollment.

Montana State University Billings (MT): In September 2016, 

OCR resolved a compliance review focused on whether the 

university discriminates against female students by denying them 

an equal opportunity to participate in intercollegiate athletics, and 

whether the university discriminates against male or female students by not awarding athletic financial assistance in proportion to 

the number of students of each sex participating in the university’s 

athletic programs. OCR found that the university did not provide 

participation opportunities for male and female students in numbers 

substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments in the 

last three years. In the 2014-15 school year, for example, female 

students comprised 58 percent of the undergraduate population 

but only 44 percent of the athletic programs. The investigation also 

found, however, that the university’s financial assistance allocation 

generally favored female athletic programs. Under the resolution 

agreement, the university committed to conduct an assessment 

regarding whether its intercollegiate athletic program is meeting 

the Three-Part Test described in OCR guidance15; decide which part 

of the Three-Part Test it wishes to meet; develop an action plan to 

meet the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex; submit 

the plan to OCR for review and approval; review its athletic financial 

awards (AFA) to determine compliance with the one percent rule; 

and submit an AFA report to OCR for approval. 

Reviewing Single-Sex Education Programs

Broward County Public Schools (FL): In August 2016, OCR 

resolved a complaint alleging that schools in this district fostered 

sex discrimination by instituting single-sex programs in the school’s 

English, math, science, and social studies classes. Specifically, 

the complainant alleged that the district classified students by sex 

without adequate justification, used teaching methods that promote 

broad gender stereotypes, failed to ensure voluntary participation of 

students, failed to provide a substantially coeducational alternative, 

and failed to properly evaluate the single-sex programs. The investigation found that the schools implementing single-sex education 

violated Title IX because they did not provide any justification or sufficient information to demonstrate why single-sex education helped 

the district achieve its academic goals. Additionally, OCR found that 

enrollment into the single-sex curriculum was not voluntary, and the 

district did not offer a substantially coeducational alternative. The 

agreement commits the district to discontinue offering single-sex 

classes at all schools and to certify in writing to OCR that notices of 

discontinuation were distributed to all parents and/or guardians of 
31

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

students enrolled in all of the schools in which the district offered 

single-sex classes during the 2015-16 school year. 

Bay Village City School District (OH): In June 2016, OCR 

resolved a complaint alleging that the district discriminated against 

male students on the basis of sex by making a non-audition choir 

course available only to female students. OCR determined that the 

district denied boys equal benefit from the district’s educational 

program because the male non-audition choir was an extracurricular activity instead of a course with academic credit like the girls’ 

choir. To remedy this noncompliance, the district entered into a 

resolution agreement that requires them to create a plan to give 

male students an equal opportunity in choir course offerings, revise 

the admission criteria for the ensemble in question to remove the 

sex restriction, widely publish these new policies, provide training 

to administrators on Title IX, and ensure that future academic and 

extracurricular offerings are provided in accordance with Title IX.

Protecting Pregnant and Parenting Students

Western Illinois University (IL): In June 2016, OCR resolved 

a complaint alleging that a student faced discrimination on the 

basis of sex when she was told by a professor she could not make 

up course assignments while on medical leave after giving birth. 

The student alleged that the professor notified her by email a few 

weeks after giving birth that she would not be permitted to turn in 

an assignment that was previously due. The professor also refused 

to accept an assignment due less than a month after her child was 

born because the student was not physically in class to fulfill the 

requirements of the assignment. Before the conclusion of OCR’s 

investigation into this matter, the university entered into a resolution 

agreement in which it committed to offer the student options that 

included completing alternative assignments in place of the ones 

she was not permitted to make up or having her grade re-calculated to omit the assignments she was not permitted to make up. 

Additionally, the university agreed to train its faculty and administrators on its policy requiring faculty members to make necessary 

modifications for pregnant students, and to provide all faculty and 

students with a copy of the policy as well as the university’s procedures for reporting discrimination. 

John Doe College16: In September 2016, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that the college discriminated against a student on 

the basis of sex when he was not permitted to submit late assignments in two of his courses following his absences due to the 

birth of a child. The complainant alleged that, in contrast, female 

classmates were permitted to turn in assignments after absences 

due to the birth of a child. OCR facilitated an Early Complaint Resolution between the college and the complainant in which the college 

agreed to credit $2,500 to the complainant’s student account for 

tuition and permit him to complete any outstanding assignments 

he was previously denied the opportunity to complete in the two 

designated courses.

Eliminating Retaliation for 

Exercising Civil Rights

John Doe University17: In November 2015, OCR resolved a 

complaint alleging that the university retaliated against a student 

after she filed a Title IX sexual harassment complaint. Specifically, 

the complainant alleged that that the university Women’s Center 

prohibited her from continuing to serve as a volunteer advocate 

on a hotline for campus sexual assault survivors after she filed 

a complaint against the university. The complainant also alleged 

that she was told the Women’s Center and its employees could 

not provide resources or support to her as a survivor because she 

filed a complaint against the university. Prior to the conclusion of 

OCR’s investigation, the university entered into an Early Complaint 

Resolution with the complainant committing the university to 

revise its policies and procedures to include information on Title 

IX’s prohibition against retaliation as well as campus resources for 

victim advocacy and legal assistance, train employees on Title IX 

policies and procedures, and provide the complainant with access 

to counseling services.
32

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

OCR protects the rights of persons with disabilities, including students and parents, under two federal laws in the education context. 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program or activity operated by recipients of federal funds. It states: “No otherwise qualified individual 

with a disability in the United States...shall, solely by reason of her 

or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the 

benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program 

or activity receiving Federal financial assistance....” Title II of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination based on disability by public entities, regardless of whether 

they receive federal financial assistance. Title II states: “[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, 

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 any such entity.” 

Policy Guidance: During FY 2016, OCR issued guidance, in the 

form of a Dear Colleague letter and accompanying Resource Guide, 

clarifying the obligation of schools to provide students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with equal educational 

opportunity under Section 504. OCR also issued a Know Your Rights 

document providing a brief overview of the guidance.

Technical Assistance: In FY 2016, OCR staff delivered 172 

technical assistance presentations across the country on disability 

rights issues. Topics included the obligations of schools, districts, 

and institutions of higher learning to provide equal access to the 

full range of programs, services, and activities available to other 

students; how entities may formulate policies, practices, and procedures that do not discriminate against students with disabilities; 

and how to remedy potential Section 504 or Title II violations once 

they are identified. 

Enforcement: In FY 2016, OCR received nearly 6,000 complaints 

alleging violations of disability laws and covering a broad range of 

issues (see Figure 14). Over the course of FY 2016, OCR successfully resolved 5,232 Section 504/Title II-related complaints. 

The following cases are illustrative of OCR’s investigatory work over 

the past year to enforce Section 504 and Title II. These cases were 

selected to portray the diversity of issues, complainants, institutions, 

geographical regions, and remedies in OCR’s enforcement work. 

They represent a small portion of OCR’s total number of resolutions 

in FY 2016, and comprise only cases that resulted in a resolution 

agreement or Early Complaint Resolution (ECR) (see page 21 for an 

explanation of ECR) between October 1, 2015 and September 30, 

2016. 

Section 504 And ADA Title II: 

Discrimination Based on Disability

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Total Number of Complaints Raising Disability Issues, FY 2016 = 5,936 Note: A single complaint can raise multiple issues; therefore, the total 

number of issues raised will exceed the number of complaints received.

680

253

593

51

1,177

684

242

137

2,141

35

40

123

115

1,209

74

38

155

516

Academic Adjustments

Accessibility (Programs/Facilities) 

Accessibility (Technology) 

Admissions and Recruitment

Different Treatment/Exclusion/Denial of Benefits

Disability Harassment

Discipline

Employment

Free Appropriate Public Education

Graduation Requirements

Disproportionate Enrollment of Minorities in Special Education 

Non-Academic Services

Procedural Requirements 

Retaliation

Seclusion and Restraint

Testing

Treatment of Postsecondary Students 

Other

Figure 14: Number of Disability Issues Raised in OCR Complaints (FY 2016)
33

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

Ensuring Equal Access to Comparable 

Educational Opportunities: Recruitment, 

Admissions, and Enrollment 

Ferris State University (MI): In July 2016, OCR resolved a complaint alleging the university discriminated against a student on the 

basis of perceived disability by withdrawing him from his academic 

program and imposing conditions on his ability to reapply. OCR 

found that the university subjected the student to different treatment by involuntarily withdrawing him from his program using a 

process that did not exist under university policies and procedures, 

not affording the student due process prior to removing him from 

the program, taking security measures against the student, and 

reporting him to a state agency. OCR also found that the evidence 

did not support that the student posed a direct threat to the health 

or safety of others such that the university would not have been 

required under Section 504 or Title II to permit the student to 

participate in its program. Finally, OCR found that the university 

was not in compliance with the Section 504 and Title II regulatory 

requirements concerning grievance procedures and a compliance 

coordinator. The agreement requires the university to reimburse the 

student tuition and fees related to his time in the program, amend 

the student’s transcript, offer to assist the student in transferring to 

a different institution/program, revise the university’s policies and 

procedures regarding mental-health crises and involuntary medical withdrawals, designate a Section 504/Title II coordinator, and 

publish and implement Section 504/II grievance procedures.

Reed College (OR): In September 2016, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that the college discriminated against students with 

disabilities by refusing to modify its housing policies to ensure that 

students who require on-campus housing for disability-related 

reasons are provided appropriate housing that affords them an 

equal opportunity to participate in the college’s programs, and by 

failing to maintain a Section 504 grievance procedure that provides 

a prompt and equitable resolution of disability-related discrimination complaints. OCR found that on-campus housing itself was 

not an accommodation offered by the college despite the fact that 

several students with disabilities had sought on-campus housing as 

an accommodation for their disability-related needs. The resolution 

agreement requires the college to review and revise its housing and 

disability policies, procedures, and practices, as well as its disability 

grievance procedures; provide training to all disability support services and residential staff regarding the college’s revised housing 

and disability policies and procedures; provide training to all staff 

involved in the implementation of the college’s disability grievance 

procedure regarding the college’s revised disability grievance 

procedures; and communicate the college’s revised policies and 

procedures to all staff and students. 

“The National Disability Rights Network is 

pleased to see the release of a guidance package 

concerning the rights of students with ADHD 

. . . which will assist advocates and families 

in accessing the information and becoming 

knowledgeable about their rights.” 

NATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK 

July 2016
34

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

Ensuring Appropriate Educational 

Support for Students with 

Disabilities

Mesa Community College (AZ): In June 2016, 

OCR resolved a complaint that alleged that the college discriminated on the basis of disability when it 

failed to permit a student to bring her service animal 

to class. The complaint also alleged a member of 

the college faculty retaliated against the student by 

threatening to reduce the student’s grade after she 

advocated for allowing to be accompanied by her 

service animal. In response to the complaint, the 

college confirmed that service animals are welcome 

in accordance with college policy. To remedy the 

issues identified, the college agreed to reverse any 

unexcused absence the student received in her class 

and re-evaluate her final grade in the course; document and retain the record of the student’s right to 

the accommodation of a service animal; and conduct 

annual training on the college’s service animal policy. 

Gwinnett County Public Schools (GA): In December 2015, OCR 

resolved a complaint alleging that students with disabilities enrolled 

in the district’s Supported Training and Rehabilitative Instruction in 

Vocational Education (STRIVE) Program were subjected to a shortened school day. After investigating the STRIVE program, students’ 

Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), and bus schedules, and after 

conducting interviews with the complainant and four members of 

the district staff, OCR found that the district had failed to provide 

students with disabilities enrolled in the STRIVE program with a full 

school day that is comparable to the school day provided to students without disabilities. To remedy these issues, in the resolution 

agreement, the school district agreed to provide a written offer of 

compensatory services in the amount of 81 hours of school during 

the summer of 2016 for each student who participated in the 

district’s STRIVE program for a full day during the 2014-15 school 

year; increase the daily hours of service for STRIVE students by 26 

minutes so that the instructional day for STRIVE students is comparable to the instructional school day for students in regular high 

schools; and provide training to administrators and teaching staff 

on the district’s obligation under Section 504 and Title II to provide 

a full instructional day to students with disabilities unless the student’s Section 504 team or IEP team determines that a shortened 

school day is necessary to meet the students’ individual needs. 

John Doe School District18: In October 2015, OCR facilitated an 

agreement to resolve a complaint alleging that the district discriminated against a parent on the basis of disability when it failed to 

provide the parent with an interpreter for a mandatory parent meeting. Through an Early Complaint Resolution between the district 

and the complainant, the district agreed to provide training to all 

district faculty and staff about their obligations to provide effective 

communication and how to work with students, parents/guardians, 

and community members with hearing impairments, including best 

practices and a protocol for reserving interpreter services; review its 

relevant policies to ensure compliance with Section 504 and Title II; 

identify individuals at each school to serve as contacts for parents/

guardians and community members with hearing impairments; and 

communicate to all parents/guardians and district faculty and staff 

on its steps to communicate effectively with parents with hearing 

impairments. 

District of Columbia Public Schools (DC): In October 2015, 

OCR resolved a complaint that alleged that the school district discriminated on the basis of disability (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, 

or PTSD) when it failed to provide a student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by not providing her related aids 

and services for her disability and removing her from the Spanish 

immersion program in the fall of 2014, causing her to drop out of 

the school. OCR found that, as early as the 2013-14 school year, 

the district had evidence that the student might have a disability 

requiring special education or related aids and services, yet did not 

provide such aids and services until December 2014 at the earliest 

and therefore failed, in violation of Section 504 and Title II, to 

provide timely special education or related aids and services during 

the 2014-15 school year. In addition, during the investigation, 

OCR found that, in violation of Section 504 and Title II, the school 

believed that it was justified in factoring in the student’s disability in 

the decision to remove her from the Spanish immersion program at 

the beginning of the 2014-15 school year, even prior to providing 

her with any aids or services. To remedy these violations, the district 

agreed to offer the student’s parents the opportunity to have the 

student considered for, and, if she is eligible, provide, compensatory 

or remedial education services, as well as to evaluate the student 

– should she re-enroll in the district – to determine whether she is 
35

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

eligible for, and, if so, provide, special education or related aids and 

services to meet the FAPE requirement.

Alabama State Department of Education (AL): In September 

2016, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that the Department 

denied the complainant’s daughter a reader accommodation for the 

ACT Aspire examination because her reading level was not at least 

two grade levels below the fifth grade level. OCR determined that 

the Department’s policy created a bright-line rule that eliminates 

the individualized assessment by the student’s Section 504 team 

or IEP team as to whether a student with a disability requires the 

reader accommodation for the ACT Aspire exam. By eviscerating 

the student’s Section 504/IEP team’s responsibility to make the accommodation decision on an individualized basis, OCR determined 

that the policy failed to comply with Section 504 and Title II. The 

Department entered into a resolution agreement in which it agreed 

to revise its ACT Aspire reader accommodation policy to comply 

with the requirements of Section 504 and Title II as it relates to 

individualized educational decisions, and to implement, publish, and 

notify all necessary parties of the revised policy once it has been 

approved by OCR. 

San Bernardino County Office of Education (CA): In August 

2016, OCR entered into an agreement with the San Bernardino 

County Office of Education to resolve a compliance review regarding services for students with disabilities at court and community 

schools. OCR found that the county did not have adequate procedures to identify students with disabilities. OCR also found that 

students who had been identified as disabled in their home district 

received services that were based largely on county resources 

rather than on a determination of their individual special needs and 

were underserved as a result. OCR also found that the county was 

not providing all of the services required by the students’ special 

education plans. OCR found the county in violation of Section 504 

and Title II and their implementing regulations. Additionally, OCR 

had concerns regarding suspension of students who may not have 

been identified or have received accommodations for their disabilities; the absence of an effective tracking system for identifying 

students with disabilities, obtaining their records in a timely manner, 

and maintaining special education records and evaluation information; and a need for a higher level of coordination and interaction 

between staff serving students with disabilities in the alternative 

and court schools and the special education program. The resolution agreement with OCR requires the county to ensure that 

students with disabilities are provided with FAPE based on individualized placement decisions; that all students with disabilities are 

appropriately identified, placed, and served based on their needs; 

that the alternative education program provides a continuum of 

special education and related services in a nonrestrictive environment; and that all students with IEPs or Section 504 plans will 

receive no significant change in their instructional setting. 

Duval County School District (FL): In October 2015, OCR 

resolved a complaint alleging that a student faced discrimination on 

the basis of disability when the district did not evaluate the student 

in a timely manner or make individualized determinations when 

Guidance on Equal Opportunity

for Students with ADHD 

On July 26, 2016, OCR issued a Dear Colleague letter and 

a Resource Guide on students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as an accompanying Know 

Your Rights document. The guidance clarifies the obligation of 

elementary and secondary school districts to provide students 

with ADHD with an equal educational opportunity. Specifically, 

the guidance: 

• explains that schools must evaluate a student when a 

student needs or is believed to need special education or 

related aids or services;

• discusses the obligation to provide services based on 

students’ specific needs and not based on generalizations 

about disabilities, or ADHD in particular; 

• clarifies that students who experience behavioral challenges, or present as unfocused or distractible, could have 

ADHD and may need an evaluation to determine their 

educational needs; and

• reminds schools that they must provide parents and 

guardians with due process and allow them to appeal 

decisions regarding the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of students with disabilities, including 

students with ADHD.
36

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

it developed the student’s Section 504 plan. OCR found that the 

district made determinations regarding what services to provide 

based on factors external to the student’s identified needs. In one 

instance, an administrator informed the complainant that the school 

does not afford accommodations other than extended time on tests 

and time and a half on homework. The Section 504 team failed 

to consider the services requested, whether the student actually 

needed those services, and whether the services or alternatives 

could allow the student to continue to participate in the International 

Baccalaureate program. The resolution agreement with OCR requires the district to revise its Section 504 policies and procedures 

to clearly indicate Section 504 plans will be based on individualized 

needs; notify all staff members in writing of their obligations under 

Section 504 and Title II; initiate annual training for all staff and 

faculty; initiate training to the Section 504 coordinator at the school 

regarding his/her responsibilities under Section 504; expunge the 

failing grades the student received during the term in question; 

and conduct reviews of all students who have or are suspected of 

having a disability to ensure they are not being denied FAPE or an 

equal opportunity to participate in the school’s program.

John Doe Charter School19: In September 2016, OCR resolved 

two complaints alleging, among other issues, that the school failed 

to provide two students with FAPE by not evaluating them for special education services or services under Section 504. After Student 

A was diagnosed with cancer and underwent emergency surgery, 

the school began providing Student A with one to two hours of 

homebound services per week. OCR determined that the school 

did not conduct evaluations or develop a plan designed to meet the 

individual educational needs of Student A, and instead repeatedly 

put off creating a formal educational plan so that school staff could 

see how Student A proceeded through his medical issues. Student 

A eventually transferred to a different school. OCR concluded that 

the school failed to provide the parent with procedural safeguards 

and failed to secure FAPE for Student A and thus violated Section 

504. In the complaint involving Student B, the complainant alleged 

that the school knew Student B had a disability but did not evaluate 

for or provide Student B with services under the IDEA or Section 

504, resulting in a denial of FAPE. While OCR made no determination on whether the school’s actions with respect to Student B 

violated Section 504, OCR identified concerns that the school failed 

to provide the parent with procedural safeguards (by not holding a 

Section 504 meeting) and failed to provide Student B with FAPE. In 

the resolution agreement, the school agreed to update policies and 

procedures concerning evaluation and eligibility for services under 

Section 504 and/or the IDEA and homebound services; train staff 

members and administrators on their obligation to evaluate and 

provide services to any student who needs or is believed to need 

special education or related services; and, if either Student A or 

Student B returns to the school, convene the appropriate Section 

504 or IEP team to determine what special education and compensatory services may be required.

John Doe School District20: In April 2016, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that the school district failed to implement a student’s Section 504 plan regarding the administering of insulin for 

the student’s diabetes by requiring the complainant (the student’s 

parent) to come to school on several occasions to administer insulin, and that the district further discriminated against the parents of 

students with diabetes by requiring them to attend field trips to provide insulin services. In the course of the investigation, OCR found 

that the student’s Section 504 plan required the district’s nurse 

to monitor and provide insulin to the student during the 2015-16 

school year, yet on more than ten occasions the complainant was 

called to school to administer insulin when the nurse was not 

scheduled to be working during the official school day. OCR found 

that, while the student’s Section 504 plan requires a backup staff 

personnel be given training on providing the student with insulin, 

the designated staff member did not know she was in the Section 

504 plan and was not familiar with the needs of the student. In 

addition, while there was no policy requiring parents of students 

with diabetes to attend field trips, OCR determined that district 

staff expected parents to attend and made no other arrangements 

for the student’s insulin-related accommodations to be provided 

during school trips. OCR also found that persons knowledgeable of 

the student’s accommodations did not participate in the creation of 

portions of the student’s Section 504 plan and that records were 

not properly kept. To remedy these issues, the district agreed to 

have a meeting to review and revise the student’s Section 504 

plan to address the student’s needs, reimburse the complainant for 

mileage and missed work time for each time the complainant was 

called in to provide the student with insulin, and develop policies 

and procedures for students who require health care as part of their 

Section 504 plan, including procedures for nurse absences and use 

of substitutes, staff training, and field trip accommodations. 
37

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

John Doe School District21: In June 2016, OCR resolved a complaint alleging discrimination against a student based on disability 

and sex. OCR found that the district inappropriately required the 

student’s parent to provide a medical diagnosis at her own cost, 

and did not adequately evaluate the student in a timely fashion to 

determine whether he had a disability or what services would best 

meet his need to ensure that he received FAPE. OCR also found 

that the district had notice of alleged sexual harassment against 

the student but did not investigate the allegations under Title IX or 

its own Title IX procedures, and that the investigation it did conduct 

was not thorough or appropriately documented and did not meet 

the requirements of Title IX. OCR further found that the district did 

not have adequate policies, procedures, or practices for ensuring 

prompt and equitable responses to complaints of sex discrimination 

under Title IX, and for addressing any sexually hostile environment 

at the district or the district’s high school. OCR also found that, after 

the student and parent filed a complaint regarding an alleged sexual assault, the district retaliated by trying to intimidate the student 

and his parent into dropping the complaint. To remedy these issues 

the district entered into a resolution agreement in which the district 

agreed to revise and publish its Title IX harassment policies and 

procedures; to provide staff and student training and information 

sessions in regards to district policies and grievance procedures; 

and to conduct a school climate survey, establish a student committee and Title IX working group, and develop a monitoring plan to 

assess the effectiveness of steps taken pursuant to the agreement. 

The district also agreed to reimburse the parent’s out-of-pocket 

costs for counseling for the student for one year, reconsider whether the student’s behavior in response to harassment warranted 

disciplinary action, and provide compensatory education, if the student chooses, as a result of the failure of the district to adequately 

evaluate the student’s eligibility for disability services. 

ALSO: See Newark Public Schools (NJ), p. 20 

(nondiscrimination in school closures and ensuring appropriate educational support for students of color and students 

with disabilities)

ALSO: See East Ramapo Central School District), p. 20 

(ensuring equal opportunities for English learners and appropriate educational support for students with disabilities)

ALSO: See Salt Lake City School District (UT), p. 22 

(ensuring equal opportunities for English learners and appropriate educational support for students with disabilities)

ALSO: See Oakland Unified School District (CA), p. 39 

(curbing restraint and seclusion and ensuring appropriate 

educational support for students of color and students with 

disabilities)

Eliminating Retaliation for Exercising 

Civil Rights

Hampton City Schools (VA): In July 2016, OCR resolved a 

complaint that alleged that the district retaliated against a parent, 

who was also a district employee, for advocating for her child with 

a disability who was enrolled in the district. During its investigation, 

OCR determined that the district retaliated against the parent for 

advocating on behalf of her daughter by informing the parent’s 

employer that it did not want the parent to continue working in the 

district’s school, which resulted in the termination of her services 

at that school. As a result, OCR found the district in violation of 

the civil rights laws enforced by OCR that prohibit retaliation for 

opposing discriminatory practices or for participating in OCR’s 

complaint resolution process. To remedy these issues, in the resolution agreement with OCR, the school district agreed to amend its 

policies to prohibit retaliation against individuals who have engaged 

in activities protected by federal law, clarify the procedure for 

filing a complaint alleging retaliation, disseminate a memo to all 

administrators that provides information on unlawful retaliation, 

post a notice stating that the district prohibits retaliation against 

individuals who have engaged in activities protected by federal law, 

provide training to administrators on retaliation, and compensate, 

as appropriate, the complaintant (parent) for the expenses that she 

incurred as a result of the district’s retaliation during the 2014-15 

and 2015-16 school years.
38

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

Combating Bullying and 

Harassment on 

the Basis of Ability Status 

John Doe School District22: In 

August 2016, OCR resolved a complaint that alleged that a student was 

subjected to discrimination on the 

basis of disability. Specifically, while 

in a school hallway, a teacher made 

derogatory comments to a student 

with multiple mental health diagnoses about the student’s prior suicide 

attempt and urged the student to kill 

herself. This exchange happened in 

the presence of other students. The 

investigation revealed that the school 

disciplined the student for assaulting 

the teacher in response to the teacher’s comments by issuing ten days of 

out-of-school suspension and assigning her to an alternative school. OCR 

concluded that the school operated a 

disability-based hostile environment 

for the student that the district failed 

to assess or address. Regarding the 

teacher’s behavior, the district’s investigation focused solely on whether 

the teacher violated the district’s code of ethics and the state’s Professional Standards Code. Additionally, OCR concluded the district’s 

Section 504 procedures and notice of nondiscrimination violated 

Section 504. The resolution agreement requires a written apology to 

the student; an offer for district-provided counseling for the student; 

a manifestation meeting to determine whether or not the student’s 

charged offense for assaulting the teacher at the time the teacher 

made the suicide comment (as well as any other disciplinary incidents during the school year) were manifestations of the student’s 

disabilities; investigation of whether the staff have subjected the 

student to any other instances of disability harassment; revision of 

the nondiscrimination notice and 504 grievance procedures; annual 

staff training on the updated notice and procedures; and a yearly 

climate check with students and staff to assess the presence and 

effects of disability harassment.

John Doe Tribal School23: In July 2016, OCR resolved a complaint alleging that a tribal school discriminated against her son 

because he is a Native American student with a learning disability. 

Specifically, the parent alleged that a teacher denied the student’s 

request for permission to use the bathroom and prompted him 

to urinate in a water bottle, which resulted in peers mocking and 

harassing him, and that the school failed to investigate her complaint appropriately. While OCR’s investigation did not show any 

evidence to conclude that the teacher discriminated against the 

student based on race/national origin or disability, it did show that 

the school failed to conduct an investigation under its grievance 

procedures, and that those grievance procedures did not meet the 

requirements of Section 504. The procedures did not include time 

frames, allowed too much uncertainty about whether an investigation will be conducted, and did not include information on the 

prohibition against retaliating against those who file complaints of 

discrimination. The school’s notice of non-discrimination also lacked 

the phone number for the compliance officer. In the resulting resolution agreement with OCR, the school agreed to revise its policies 

and grievance procedures for responding to disability discrimination 

complaints, disseminate them to all students, parents, and school 

staff, and train staff annually about responding to such complaints.
39

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

Safeguarding Accessibility of 

Appropriate Technology 

Educational Testing Service (NJ): In December 2015, OCR 

resolved a complaint against the Educational Testing Service 

(ETS), the world’s largest private nonprofit educational testing and 

assessment organization, which administers the GRE, TOEFL, and 

PRAXIS tests, among others. The complainant alleged that ETS did 

not allow testing applicants seeking testing accommodations to use 

its online registration system, thereby discriminating on the basis of 

disability. During the investigation, OCR confirmed that ETS required 

testing applicants with disabilities seeking testing accommodations 

to submit test registration materials to ETS by mail, courier, or fax, 

whereas other test takers could submit test registration materials 

online. Additionally, OCR found that ETS did not allow testing applicants with disabilities seeking testing accommodations to select a 

test date and location until after it had reviewed the documentation 

supporting the request for testing accommodations and approved 

the request. Testing applicants with disabilities seeking testing accommodations, even after obtaining approval for accommodations, 

were not able to use the online registration system and instead had 

to register by telephone. The resolution with OCR requires ETS to 

develop procedures and a plan designed to enable test takers with 

disabilities seeking accommodations to submit test registration 

information online; request testing accommodations and submit 

supporting materials for the requested accommodations through 

ETS’s website or online registration platform; and permit test takers 

seeking testing accommodations to indicate their preferred test 

dates and test sites online through ETS’s website or online registration platform.

Guam Department of Education: In June 2016, OCR reached 

a settlement agreement with the Guam Department of Education 

to ensure website accessibility for people with disabilities. The 

complainant alleged that a number of pages on the department’s 

website were not accessible to people with disabilities. During the 

course of the investigation, OCR found that the websites utilized by 

the department failed to provide the “alt tags” that describe images 

to blind and low-vision users who utilize special software. Another 

issue included that some important content of the websites were 

only accessible by computer mouse, which meant that content was 

not available to those who are blind, have low vision, or disabilities 

affecting fine motor control. To remedy these issues, the department entered into a resolution agreement in which it agreed to 

ensure equal opportunity for people with disabilities by selecting 

an auditor with the requisite knowledge and experience to identify 

barriers to accessing the department’s web pages, develop a corrective action plan to prioritize the removal of online barriers, and 

ensure that all new website content and functionality be accessible 

to people with disabilities. Additionally, the department agreed to 

provide website accessibility training to all appropriate personnel. 

Curbing Restraint and Seclusion

Oakland Unified School District (CA): In June 2016, OCR 

resolved a complaint alleging that a nine-year-old student faced 

discrimination on the basis of disability when school officials at 

the non-public school in which the district placed the student, with 

the consent of the student’s parents, restrained him 92 times over 

an 11-month period from April 2013 through February 2014. The 

investigation confirmed the allegations and found that, in total, the 

student was held face down for 2,200 minutes. In contrast to the 

non-public school, the district utilizes positive behavior interventions 

and supports and does not allow prone restraint to be used against 

students in its schools. The student spent more time in seclusion 

or a recovery room than in instruction during the indicated time 

period and experienced a regression in academic performance. 

OCR determined that the restraint and seclusion of the student 

were severe and pervasive enough to diminish the student’s ability 

to benefit from education and participate in educational activities, 

constituting a hostile educational environment for the student. OCR 

found the district in violation of Section 504 and Title II by failing to 

implement the student's IEP and failing to respond to notice of a 

hostile environment. The resolution agreement includes a provision 

that the district will no longer contract with non-public institutions 

that condone prone restraint. The district must also develop a 

master contract to be universally applied to all non-public schools 

it contracts with that includes a prohibition on the use of restraint 

and protocols for reporting instances in which restraint is used. The 

agreement provides for an evaluation of the student to assess the 

adverse effects related to the use of prone restraint, the convening of an IEP team meeting to develop a plan for compensatory 

education and services for the student, and training regarding the 

adverse effects of restraint and successful alternative intervention 

methods for special education administrators and staff responsible 

for monitoring children at non-public schools in the district.
40

SECURING EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

United States Department of Education | FY 2016

Enforcement Activity Under Other Statutes 

OCR also has jurisdiction over two additional civil rights laws: the 

Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and the Boy Scouts of America 

Equal Access Act (2001). 

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination based 

on age in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. This prohibition extends to all state education agencies, elementary and secondary school systems, colleges and universities, 

vocational schools, proprietary schools, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, libraries, and museums that receive federal financial 

assistance from the U.S. Department of Education. Programs or 

activities that receive such funds must provide aids, benefits, or 

services in a nondiscriminatory manner. These include (but are not 

limited to) admissions, recruitment, financial aid, academic programs, student treatment and services, counseling and guidance, 

discipline, classroom assignment, grading, vocational education, 

recreation, physical education, athletics, and housing. Though the 

Act does not limit protections against discrimination to a certain age 

group, it does allow for exceptions such as when colleges offer special programs that are geared toward providing special benefits to 

children and the elderly. In FY 2016, OCR received 581 complaints 

under the Age Discrimination Act and resolved 601 complaints. 

Common remedies in OCR resolutions include provisions that 

require training for staff, updating and disseminating nondiscrimination policies, and investigation by the institution into the specific 

incidents that resulted in the allegation of age discrimination. 

The Boy Scouts of America Equal 

Access Act (2001) 

OCR also enforces the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act. 

Under this Act, no public elementary school, public secondary 

school, or state or local education agency that provides an opportunity for one or more outside youth or community groups to meet 

at the school, before or after school hours, shall deny equal access 

or a fair opportunity to meet or otherwise discriminate against any 

group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America or any 

other youth group listed in Title 36 of the United States Code as a 

patriotic society. In FY 2016, OCR received 22 complaints under 

the Boy Scouts Act and resolved 20 cases. Many of the complaints 

filed under this statute sought enforcement of the requirement that 

institutions’ nondiscrimination policies include a statement about 

the Boy Scouts Act and its provisions.
41

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

Office for Civil Rights | FY 2016

Looking Ahead 

OCR’s abiding goal is to ensure that all students – irrespective of 

their race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, or disability status – are 

afforded equity and opportunity in schools, from preschool to postsecondary education. The preceding pages illustrate OCR’s activities in FY 2016 to secure that equity and opportunity for students. 

This past year, the cases we reviewed and investigated have again 

served as a reminder that discrimination still pervades far too many 

schools, but also that the capacity of many schools to resist and 

redress discrimination is deep.

In the future, addressing the steep rise in the number civil rights 

complaints will be challenging for OCR, which must continue to 

investigate and resolve cases with rigor and speed to protect 

students’ civil rights and ensure they have an equal opportunity to 

reach their full potential. With its dedicated and expert staff, and 

with sufficient resources, OCR can and will succeed in meeting this 

obligation. 

We look forward to continuing to execute Congress’ mandate of 

nondiscrimination and equity for students nationwide. 
42

Total number of resolution agreements in FY 2016 by jurisdiction, statute, and type of investigation

Title VI Title IX Disability Age

State, District, 

or Territory TOTAL Complaints Compliance

Reviews TOTAL Complaints ComplianceReviews TOTAL Complaints ComplianceReviews TOTAL Complaints ComplianceReviews

TOTAL

Per State*

AK 1 1 2 2 3

AL 8 8 8

AR 5 5 5

AS 0

AZ 1 1 2 2 39 39 42

CA 17 17 12 12 70 69 1 99

CO 2 2 16 16 18

CT 2 2 2

DC 2 2 2

DE 1 1 4 4 5

FL 2 2 1 1 21 21 24

GA 2 2 1 1 8 8 11

GU 1 1 1

HI 0

IA 1 1 1

ID 2 2 2

IL 2 2 6 5 1 14 14 22

IN 7 7 7

KS 1 1 5 5 6

KY 1 1 6 6 7

LA 2 2 2 2 4

MA 1 1 13 13 14

MD 4 4 9 9 13

ME 1 1 1

MH 0

MI 1 1 3 3 63 63 67

MN 1 1 6 6 7

MO 21 21 21

MS 1 1 1

MT 2 1 1 4 4 6

NC 1 1 3 2 1 20 20 24

ND 1 1 8 8 9

NE 1 1 2 2 3

NH 4 4 4

NJ 5 5 3 3 15 15 23

NM 1 1 1 1 9 9 11

NV 5 5 5

NY 6 6 9 9 26 26 1 1 42**

OH 3 2 1 3 3 16 16 22

OK 2 2 1 1 6 6 9

OR 2 1 1 11 11 13

PA 2 2 5 5 18 18 1 1 26**

PR 12 12 12

RI 1 1 3 3 4

SC 2 2 8 8 10

SD 3 3 3

TN 13 13 13

TX 1 1 3 3 27 27 31

UT 1 1 7 7 8

VA 1 1 18 18 19

VI 2 2 2

VT 2 2 2

WA 6 6 7 7 13

WI 1 1 6 6 7

WV 1 1 7 7 8

WY 1 1 1 1 2

TOTAL Per Statute 57 78 587 2 724**

APPENDIX: Index of Cases Resolved With Agreements

* There were no resolution agreements involving the 

 Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act in FY 2016. 

** 698 cases resulted in resolution agreements during FY 2016. However the total listed here reflects the fact that many cases 

 included issues across multiple statutes. Additionally, there were 2 claims of age discrimination that are included in this total.
43

1 In this document, unless otherwise specified, “resolved cases” include 

cases that resulted in dismissal, administrative closure, a finding of no 

violation, an early complaint resolution, a resolution requiring action by 

institutions without a resolution agreement, or a resolution agreement.

Note: the number of cases resolved in FY 2016 includes cases received 

prior to FY 2016.

2 In this document, unless otherwise specified, “schools” means elementary and secondary schools or school districts, postsecondary colleges 

or universities, and any other type of educational institution receiving 

federal financial assistance. 

3 Throughout this document, data on the number of complaints in discrete issue areas received by OCR in prior fiscal years may vary slightly 

when compared to data in discrete issue areas reported in previous 

publications. This is because case information continues to be updated 

in OCR’s database as cases are processed or investigated, resulting in 

changes in the categorization of some cases. The data contained in this 

annual report is current as of October 14, 2016. 

4 Section 203(c)(1) of the 1979 Department of Education Organization 

Act conveys to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights the authority to 

“collect or coordinate the collection of data necessary to ensure compliance with civil rights laws within the jurisdiction of the Office for Civil 

Rights.” See 20 U.S.C. § 3413(c)(1). In addition, the civil rights laws 

enforced by OCR and their implementing regulations require recipients 

of the Department’s federal financial assistance to submit to OCR 

“complete and accurate compliance reports at such times, and in such 

form and containing such information” as OCR “may determine to be 

necessary to enable [OCR] to ascertain whether the recipient has complied or is complying” with these laws and implementing regulations. 

See 34 CFR § 100.6(b), 34 CFR § 106.71, and 34 CFR § 104.61. 

5 For a fuller summary of findings from the 2013-14 Civil Rights Data 

Collection, see http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc2013-14.html. 

6 In this document, “high/low black and Latino enrollment” refers to 

schools with more than 75 percent and less than 25 percent black and 

Latino student enrollment, respectively.

7 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations.

8 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations.

9 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations.

10 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations. 

11 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations.

12 This guidance is the subject of litigation against several federal agencies and officials pending before a federal district court in Texas v. United States, 7:16-cv-00054 (N.D.Tex. 2016). On August 21, and October 

18, 2016, the court issued a preliminary injunction and clarification 

order, respectively, regarding the Departments’ ability to rely on parts of 

the May 13 guidance related to “intimate” facilities. The Departments 

have appealed the August 21 and October 18 rulings to the Fifth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. See Texas v. United States, No. 16-11534 (5th Cir. 

Oct. 20, 2016). In the meantime, OCR has taken steps to ensure compliance with the preliminary injunction, as clarified. Since the ruling in 

Texas, several other courts have issued preliminary injunctions in favor 

of individual transgender plaintiffs under Title IX or denied preliminary 

injunctions sought against the government. See, e.g., Students & 

Parents for Privacy v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 16-cv-4945, ECF No. 

134 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2016); Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. 

No. 1, No. 16-cv-943, ECF No. 10 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 22, 2016); Highland 

Bd. of Ed. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 2016 WL 5372349, at *11 (S.D. Ohio 

Sept. 26, 2016); Carcaño v. McCrory, No. 1:16-cv-236, ECF No. 127 

(M.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 2016). The only court of appeals to consider the 

issue held that OCR’s interpretation of its Title IX regulations was the 

result of its “fair and considered judgment,” and was “in line with the 

existing guidances and regulations of a number of federal agencies.” 

See G.G. v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709, 720 (4th Cir. 

2016), mandate recalled and stayed, Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. G.G., 

No. 16A52 (Aug. 3, 2016), cert. granted, No. 16-273 (Oct. 28, 2016).

13 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations.

14 The treatment of transgender students is the subject of litigation 

against several federal agencies and officials pending before a federal 

district court in Texas v. United States, 7:16-cv-00054 (N.D.T.X. 2016). 

See also Endnote 12. 

15 See Endnote 12. 

16 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations. 

17 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations.

18 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations.

17 See http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100420.pdf.

19 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations.

20 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations.

21 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations.

22 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations.

23 OCR has not disclosed the actual name of the institution in this case 

because of privacy considerations.

Endnotes
United States Department of Education

John B. King, Jr., Secretary 

Catherine E. Lhamon, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

Lyndon Baines Johnson Building

Department of Education 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW , Washington, DC 20202-1100 

Telephone: 800-421-3481 | FAX: 202-453-6012 

TDD: 877-521-2172 

Email: OCR@ed.gov | www.ed.gov/ocr

U.S. Department of Education 

Office for Civil Rights

Availability of Alternate Formats:

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the Alternate Format Center by calling 

202.260.0852 or by contacting the Section 508 Coordinator via e-mail at om_eeos@ed.gov.

Notice to Limited-English-Proficient Persons:

If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for Department information that is available to 

the public. These language assistance services are available free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation 

services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1.800.872.5327) (TTY: 1.800.877.8339) or e-mail us at ED.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. 

You also can write to U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, 

Washington, DC, 20202.