Source: http://www.williamgoren.com/blog/tag/public-universities/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:59:29+00:00

Document:
Are fraternities subject to title III of the ADA?
This blog entry is divided into separate categories: introduction; the statutes; the case of the week; and takeaways. You probably will want to read all of it, but you still have the option to focus on any of the categories you like.
1. 42 U.S.C. § 3607 is the private club exception In the Fair Housing Act, but all it says is that a private club can limit housing to members.
2. 42 U.S.C. § 12187 is the private club exception for title III of the ADA. It states that title III of the ADA does not apply to private clubs or establishments exempted from coverage under title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or to religious organizations or entity controlled by religious organizations, including places of worship. This means we have to go to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 2000-a(e) to see what that says.
3. 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e) says that title two of the Civil Rights Act does not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b).
With respect to fraternities, an argument can be made that fraternities are open to the public. After all, both members of the fraternity and nonmembers of the fraternity will frequently visit fraternities. Second, a fraternity is providing lodging to a transient guest (see paragraph 4 immediately below).
4. 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b)(1) covers any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment providing lodging to transient guests other than an establishment located within a building containing not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence.
With respect to fraternities, the proprietor exception would not apply.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has spoken on this as far back as 2006 in Regents of the Mercersburg College v. Republic Franklin Insurance Company, 458 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2006). In this case, the insured operated a private secondary boarding school. A school building that contained dormitory housing was damaged by fire. The insured claim that an ordinance and a endorsement to its property insurance policy covered the costs to bring the building into compliance with the ADA.
1. Private school dormitories are transient lodging as defined by the ADA regulations.
2. Dormitories are part of boarding schools and therefore are places of education.
3. Appendix A to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines specifically includes dormitories.
4. Chapter 3 of the Appendix A to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines explicitly states that transient lodging includes a building or facility containing sleeping accommodations and also mentions dormitories.
5. Student housing is an integral part of the boarding school experience and therefore is one of the facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of education covered by title III of the ADA.
6. Places of education are subject to title III of the ADA.
7. A technical assistance letter from the Department of Justice dated May 2, 1994 takes the position that all aspects of a school’s student activities and of the educational experience are covered by title III of the ADA. This letter specifically references fraternity houses owned and operated By a University.
The court wound up remanding the case because whenever alterations are made, the path of travel regulations kick in. That means, conceivably the undamaged portions of the dormitory might need to undergo ADA renovations. As a matter contractual interpretation, the insurance company would not be liable for necessary renovations to undamaged areas of the dormitory.
1. With respect to public universities, as we have seen many times before in this blog, title II of the ADA applies to everything that a public entity does. Further, since places of education are involved, to satisfy the Rehabilitation Act all of the operations of the place of education must be accessible to persons with disabilities. Since just about all universities take federal funds, the Rehabilitation Act does come into play in just about all cases.
This one is interesting because a fraternity doesn’t really have the same reason for being as an exclusive country club does, though some of those reasons do exist.
It would take research on my part to determine what formalities are being referred to. Corporate formalities? Formalities that make the fraternity setting stand apart?
Undoubtedly fees are charged, but whether they are substantial would take further research.
This one is very interesting because if a public university is involved, the fraternity is in some way probably receiving public funds.
K. Whether the club was created or is being used to avoid compliance with a Civil Rights Act.
This one is also interesting because the Americans with Disabilities Act is a Civil Rights Act.
A question that arises is whether all of these factors must be satisfied or whether, like revenue ruling 87-41 (dealing with independent contractors), no one particular factor is dispositive, rather you have to look at it in the broad sense. Also, this technical assistance letter says that they are covered by title III to the extent they open up their establishment to the general public for purposes falling within one of the categories of places of public accommodation. So, if the fraternity host events open to persons other than fraternity members and their guests (in the context of a fraternity, I am not sure what the phrase, “and their guests” refers to), the fraternity must be accessible in their public areas during those events. The more often those public events occur, the higher the obligation to make the publicly use areas accessible. This also doesn’t answer the question considering the nature of fraternities. An argument can be created that with respect to fraternities, even the living quarters would be public areas or areas that the public frequently uses.
3. As we have discussed previously, it is now unclear as to just how persuasive interpretation of regulations, such as appendices, are going to be.
4. So how do you deal with this situation? First, is it a private university? Second, is the private university owning and operating the fraternity? Third, if not, is the fraternity a private club? Fourth, if the fraternity is a private club, have you gone through the criteria in this letter? (Don’t forget about applicable case law here as well). Fifth, if it is a public University, is the fraternity receiving federal funds. If so, the Rehabilitation Act would apply and so would accessibility obligations. If not, go back to the private club analysis. Finally, if it is a public University and even if the fraternity is not receiving federal funds, are the fraternities such an integral part of the educational experience that denying accessibility would mean not allowing a person with a disability to benefit from the privileges, advantages, and benefits of an education at that institution?
Lots to think about and that leads to…. make sure you have a knowledgeable attorney to help your sort these things out.

References: § 3607
 § 12187
 § 2000
 § 2000
 § 2000
 § 2000
 v.