Opinion ID: 628999
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Accessibility Requirements

Text: 37 Judge Duplantier recognized that McGregor's demands regarding the bathroom door and entrance ramp at the Law Center probably describe reasonable accommodations; however, these suggested changes standing alone would certainly not affect plaintiff's ability to meet the Law Center's academic requirements. 14 McGregor contends that Judge Duplantier erred by considering the accessibility and physical barrier issues in conjunction with reasonable accommodations. We disagree. 38 McGregor himself intermingles the two issues. The crux of McGregor's claim here is that the Law Center violated Sec. 504 with respect to physical access to its facility which resulted in his poor academic performance. Also, on appeal, McGregor argues that the fact question is whether or not the physical barriers and lack of accessibility were sufficient to prevent plaintiff from achieving the academic requirements of the Law Center in a given semester. 39 More importantly, the fact that the Law Center facility was completed in 1969, prior to June 3, 1977, the effective date of the regulations regarding accessibility standards, changes the focus from the accessibility of the facility to the accessibility of the program. According to the regulations, only facilities where construction commenced after the effective date of the regulations must be designed and constructed in such a manner that the facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and useable by handicapped persons. 45 C.F.R. Sec. 84.23(a) (1992) (section entitled New Construction, Design and Construction). Because there has been no construction on the Law Center since 1969 (other than for ordinary maintenance and repair), a separate set of regulations applies to the Law Center. The Law Center must: 40 operate each program or activity ... so that the program or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to handicapped persons. This paragraph does not require a recipient to make each of its existing facilities or every part of a facility accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. 41 84 C.F.R. Sec. 84.22(a) (1992) (section entitled Existing Facilities, Program Accessibility) (emphasis added); see 45 C.F.R. Sec. 84.22(a) (almost identical language). 15 So the issue raised is not whether the Law Center facility is accessible, but whether the program is accessible. 16 This entails more than a determination that the physical accommodations were reasonable; a court must determine whether McGregor could access the program had the physical changes been made. 42 Judge Duplantier decided that while the suggested changes were probably reasonable, they would certainly not affect plaintiff's ability to meet the Law Center's academic requirement. Judge Duplantier, therefore, properly considered the question of accessibility. Furthermore, his conclusion is supported by the undisputed facts. 43 The record reflects that the Law Center's program was accessible to McGregor and that physical barriers did not prevent him from being otherwise qualified for retention. McGregor was not in a wheelchair during the first freshman semester when he first flunked out. He began to use the wheelchair toward the end of the spring 1989 semester in which he audited courses. The Law Center provided McGregor with a key to an additional elevator which accessed all floors and a ramp at the main entrance. The Law Center also acquired a handicapped table and scheduled McGregor's classes in the new building which was more accessible than the old building. The Law Center removed the inner door on the first floor bathroom. A special bench, chosen by McGregor, was provided to aid McGregor during examinations, as was his own student proctor. 17 In addition, the Law Center made special arrangements for examinations, tutoring, auditing courses, and early readmission. We agree with Judge Duplantier that the suggested additional changes to the Law Center's physical facility would not affect plaintiff's ability to pass muster at the Law Center and, consequently, would not affect his ability to participate in the Law Center's program. The judgment regarding program accessibility is affirmed.