Blind & Low Vision

Visual access rarely fails through refusal. It fails through timing and procurement: the accessible text that arrives in week six, the courseware nobody checked before adopting, the laboratory or clinical placement arranged as though the question would sort itself out.

If your college has refused, delayed, or failed to deliver an accommodation for blindness or low vision, here is how I handle disability accommodation disputes under Section 504 and the ADA.

Late access is denied access, and the way to establish that is to create a written record of the dates.

What accommodations look like

Materials: electronic text in an accessible format; braille; large print at a specified point size; tactile graphics and raised-line diagrams; described images and described video; readings supplied far enough in advance to be converted.

Technology: screen readers and magnification; a compatible learning platform; accessible PDFs rather than scanned images; accessible spreadsheets, question banks and simulation software.

Examinations: extended time reflecting the actual rate of screen-reader or magnified reading; a reader or a scribe; braille or large-print papers; a separate room; accessible online proctoring, or an alternative where the proctoring platform is not accessible.

Teaching: a requirement that instructors describe what is on the board and read aloud what they write; accessible copies of everything projected; advance notice of visual demonstrations.

Laboratory and clinical: a sighted laboratory assistant; accessible or talking instruments; adapted procedures; planning with the site before the placement, not on arrival.

Guide dogs. A service animal is not a request for an accommodation and is not subject to a documentation process. Access includes clinical and laboratory areas unless the animal’s presence would fundamentally alter the specific activity — which has to be assessed for that setting, not asserted about buildings in general.

The procurement problem

The most consequential accessibility decisions at a university are made by people who never meet you: whoever chose the learning platform, the homework system, the e-textbook, the simulation software, the proctoring vendor.

When one of those is inaccessible, the school will often tell you it is the vendor’s fault. It is not your problem to solve and it is not the vendor’s obligation to you. The institution chose the tool and owes you access to the course. Put that in writing, ask what interim measure applies while the tool is fixed, and ask for it in a form you can actually use this week.

Timing is the whole game

Converting a textbook takes time. So does producing tactile graphics, or captioning and describing a video. A request made at the start of term is generally met; the same request made in week four is met in week nine, by which point the term is decided.

Ask for reading lists and materials as far in advance as the institution can produce them, and put the request in writing so the delay, if it happens, belongs to the school. Where materials arrived late, say so at the time. A record of dates built during the term is worth more than any argument made afterwards.

What schools get wrong

“The publisher’s PDF is all we have.” A scanned image is not accessible text. The obligation is access to the content, not a copy of the file.

“You can use the disability office computer.” Access confined to one room during office hours is not equal access to a course.

“We will get it to you as soon as we can.” Ask for a date, in writing, and ask what you are to do in the meantime.

Grading you on work you could not access. A term completed without approved access did not measure your ability, and that is the argument on any academic-standing consequence that follows.

Technical standards used as a wall. Blind and low-vision professionals practise across medicine, law, science and teaching. A programme asserting that a competency requires sight has to show it for that competency and address the adaptations used elsewhere in the field.

The four rules that decide coverage

The Office for Civil Rights repeats the same boxed statement of how the coverage question is decided in every condition fact sheet it publishes. It comes from the statute, not from the fact sheets, so it applies to every condition equally — including this one. It is short, it is favourable to students, and almost nobody reads it:

  1. The question should not demand extensive analysis. Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is not meant to be a fight.
  2. “Substantially limits” is construed broadly, in favour of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent the statutory language permits.
  3. An impairment need not prevent or severely restrict anything. It is enough that it substantially limits the activity as compared to most people in the general population. And an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.
  4. Medication is disregarded. The beneficial effects of mitigating measures — medication above all — must be left out of the assessment. You are evaluated as you would be untreated.

OCR adds one more line to every sheet that is worth committing to memory: a school may always accept that a student has a disability without any documentation or medical tests. Documentation may be requested. It is not a precondition the law imposes.

And this, which answers the most common self-defeating assumption students make: a student may need modifications even if they are not substantially limited in the major life activity of learning. Good grades do not end the inquiry.

Accommodations for other conditions

The legal test is the same whatever the diagnosis — what matters is the functional limitation and the barrier it creates. These pages cover other conditions:


The law that governs a college accommodation request

Two statutes do the work. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, reaches every school that takes federal money — which is very nearly all of them. The ADA covers the rest: Title II for public colleges and universities, Title III for private ones as places of public accommodation. In the Eleventh Circuit, which governs Florida, claims under the two are analysed under the same standards.

The regulation that actually decides most disputes is 34 C.F.R. § 104.44, and it is worth knowing what it says on both sides of the line.

What it requires. A college must modify academic requirements where necessary so they do not discriminate — and the regulation names examples: changes in the length of time permitted to complete a degree, substitution of specific courses, and adaptation of how a course is conducted. It requires modified examination formats so that results measure achievement rather than the disability, unless the disability is what the test is measuring. And it requires auxiliary aids — taped texts, interpreters, library readers, adapted classroom equipment.

What it expressly does not require. The same regulation says a college need not provide attendants, individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices or services of a personal nature. A student who asks for a personal aide or a personal reader is asking for something § 104.44 does not oblige the school to supply, and it is better to know that at the outset. The regulation also provides that academic requirements the school can demonstrate are essential to the instruction, or to a directly related licensing requirement, are not discriminatory.

“Otherwise qualified” — and where Florida students lose

Protection runs only to a student who is “otherwise qualified.” Under Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979), that means able to meet the programme’s requirements in spite of the disability, and the statute does not require substantial modifications to the programme itself. The Eleventh Circuit put it plainly in Goldberg v. Florida International University, 838 F. App’x 487 (11th Cir. 2020): a qualified student is one who can meet the programme’s academic standards with or without accommodations.

The recent Florida cases show where that bites. In Nehme v. Florida International University Board of Trustees, 121 F.4th 1379 (11th Cir. 2024), a medical student who failed at least eight courses — five of them after being placed on academic probation — was held not to be a qualified individual, and it counted against him that he conceded he had received proper accommodations for four of the failed exams. In J.A.M. v. Nova Southeastern University, 646 F. App’x 921 (11th Cir. 2016), repeated extended leaves of absence, exam rescheduling and excusal of misconduct were held to be accommodations that would fundamentally alter an osteopathic medicine programme.

The practical lesson runs the other way, though, and it is the reason timing matters more than almost anything else: accommodations are forward-looking. A request made after a run of failures is fighting the record those failures created. The same request made before them is a different case entirely.

The school has to actually think about it — the strongest student-side rule

Deference to academic judgment is real. Courts will not override a genuinely academic decision unless it is “such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment” — Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225 (1985) — and courts in Florida give the same respect to a school’s judgment about the qualifications its programme requires. But deference is earned, not assumed, and that is where cases are won.

Under Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine, 932 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1991) (en banc) — applied in Florida in Forbes v. St. Thomas University, 768 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (S.D. Fla. 2010), aff’d, 456 F. App’x 809 (11th Cir. 2012) — a school has “a real obligation” to “seek suitable means of reasonably accommodating” a student with a disability, and has to put in a factual record showing that its officials “considered alternative means, their feasibility, cost and effect on the academic program” before concluding that no reasonable accommodation was available. A conclusory assertion, with no evidence of deliberate consideration, is not enough. So the question to ask of any denial is not only “was this decision right?” but “is there any record that anyone actually weighed the alternatives?” Often there is not.

Two further points help. Whether an accommodation would impose an undue burden or fundamentally alter a programme is generally a question of fact — Redding v. Nova Southeastern University, 165 F. Supp. 3d 1274 (S.D. Fla. 2016) — which means it is not something a school can simply assert its way past. And to establish fundamental alteration a school has to identify the essential requirement, show that modifying it goes to the core of the programme, and show it considered whether any lesser alternative existed.

The interactive process, and a warning about how students lose it

Section 504 and the ADA do not use the phrase “interactive process” for college students the way employment law does, and the Eleventh Circuit has not held in a published decision that failing to engage in one is independently actionable — that remains unsettled. What Florida courts do recognise, from Forbes, is that the process is genuinely two-sided: the student carries the initial burden to identify the disability and make the case for specific accommodations, after which the school must consider the request and make a reasoned decision.

Here is the warning. In Amy v. Florida International University Board of Trustees, 2024 WL 5323717 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2024), the court found that the student broke down the interactive process by insisting on one particular accommodation and resisting any alternative. Where a school does not obstruct the process and makes reasonable efforts to communicate and to accommodate on the information it has, liability does not follow. Refusing every alternative on offer is a way to lose a case that could have been won — ask for what you need, but engage with what is proposed, and put the reasons in writing.

Technical standards

Published technical standards get real deference. Following Southeastern Community College v. Davis, the Eleventh Circuit treats a school’s academic standards as entitled to deference as the statement of the qualifications its programme requires: Wood v. President & Trustees of Spring Hill College, 978 F.2d 1214, 1222–23 (11th Cir. 1992); see also Redding v. Nova Southeastern University, 165 F. Supp. 3d 1274, 1285 (S.D. Fla. 2016). They are not untouchable. The Section 504 regulation shields only the academic requirements a school can demonstrate are essential to the instruction or to a directly related licensing requirement, 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(a), so the showing is the school’s to make. And under Wynne, the school has to show that the people responsible actually considered the alternatives — their feasibility, cost and effect on the programme — rather than simply pointing to the standard. Courts will not second-guess curriculum or clinical content on a thin record, but a standard that appears nowhere until the moment it is used to exclude a student is a different matter from one published and applied consistently for years.

Retaliation

Asking for accommodations is protected activity, and so is complaining about how a request was handled. A retaliation claim requires protected activity, the school’s knowledge of it, an adverse action, and a causal link — with but-for causation, and the familiar burden-shifting that follows. Retaliation claims sometimes survive where the underlying accommodation claim does not, because they turn on what the school did after the request rather than on whether the student was qualified.

Where to complain, and what it is worth

There are two routes and they are not alternatives you have to choose between carefully — a student may do both.

The Office for Civil Rights. A complaint to the U.S. Department of Education’s OCR must be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory act. It costs nothing and needs no lawyer, though what you put in it matters.

Court. A postsecondary student does not have to exhaust administrative remedies before suing under Section 504 or the ADA. Filing with OCR is not a prerequisite.

On remedies, be realistic. Injunctive relief — reinstatement, the accommodation itself, correction of a record — and attorney’s fees do not require proof of intentional discrimination. Money damages do, generally shown through deliberate indifference: that the school knew of a substantial risk of discrimination and failed to act.

And one recent development that changes what these cases are worth. In Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, 596 U.S. 212 (2022), the Supreme Court held that emotional distress damages are not recoverable under Section 504, because it was enacted under the Spending Clause and funding recipients never consented to that exposure. The Eleventh Circuit extended that to ADA Title II in A.W. v. Coweta County School District, 110 F.4th 1309 (11th Cir. 2024). Earlier Eleventh Circuit authority allowing emotional distress damages, Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, 505 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2007), no longer holds. For most students this means the value of a case lies in getting the accommodation, the place, or the record put right — not in a damages award for the distress of the fight.

This page describes how these rules work in general. It is not legal advice about your situation, and no outcome can be promised in any individual case.

Common questions

My accessible textbook arrived halfway through the term. Is that a violation?

Access that arrives too late to be useful is the recurring failure in this area. Document the dates you asked and the date it arrived, and raise it during the term.

The course software does not work with my screen reader.

The institution chose the tool and owes you access to the course. Ask in writing what interim measure applies while it is fixed.

Do I need documentation for my guide dog?

A service animal is not an accommodation request subject to a documentation process. Access questions in a clinical or laboratory area are assessed for that specific setting.

How much extended time should I ask for?

Enough to reflect your actual reading rate with your access technology, which is often more than the standard time and a half. Ask the evaluator to state the rate.

Can a programme refuse me on technical standards?

Only after considering whether an accommodation would let you meet them. A general assertion that a profession requires sight is not an individualised assessment.

This practice is student-side only

A Students’ Lawyer represents students and families. It does not advise, defend, or consult for colleges, universities, testing agencies, or licensing boards. Knowing how a school is supposed to run this analysis is what makes it possible to show when it has not — where the interactive process was skipped, where an essential-requirement finding was assumed rather than made, where a denial rests on a blanket policy rather than on this student’s documentation. The standard reads the same from either chair. The reason to know it cold is to hold the institution to it.