Deaf & Hard of Hearing

Communication access is the one area of disability law where the standard is unusually clear and institutions are unusually casual about meeting it.

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

The obligation is effective communication — communication as effective as it is for everyone else — and under the Title II regulations a public institution must give primary consideration to the auxiliary aid the person with the disability requests. Not equal consideration. Primary.

A private college is held to the same effective-communication standard, but the Title III regulation leaves the final choice of method to the college, as long as the method it chooses actually works. 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1)(ii).

What that means in practice

A public school may depart from the requested method only where it can show an equally effective alternative, or that the request would fundamentally alter the programme or impose an undue burden — and undue burden is decided against the resources of the whole institution, not the departmental budget someone quotes at you.

Cost is almost never a defence for a university. A department that says it cannot afford an interpreter is describing an internal allocation problem, not a legal one, and saying so in writing frequently resolves it.

Two further rules matter and are widely ignored. The institution cannot charge you for the auxiliary aid or service. And it cannot rely on a family member, a friend, or another student to interpret.

What accommodations look like

Live access: ASL interpreters, including qualified interpreters for technical and clinical vocabulary; CART or real-time captioning; assistive listening systems; a captioned relay for remote sessions.

Materials: captioning on every video used in a course, including material produced by a publisher; transcripts; slides and readings in advance so an interpreter can prepare terminology.

Classroom conditions: preferential seating with sightlines to both the speaker and the interpreter; a room where one person speaks at a time; a moderated protocol for seminars and group work.

Examinations: written rather than spoken instructions; an interpreter present for spoken components; extended time where the interpreting or captioning process itself adds time.

Clinical and laboratory settings: interpreters on rotation; amplified or electronic stethoscopes; visual alarms and alerting devices; advance planning with the site rather than on the first morning.

Clinical placements are where this fails

The most common failure in this area is not a denial. It is an approval that stops at the campus boundary.

A student with interpreters in class arrives at a hospital rotation and finds that nobody arranged anything, that the site says it is the school’s responsibility and the school says it is the site’s, and that the student is told to manage. When the rotation then goes badly, it is graded as a clinical failure.

The programme is responsible for the placements it arranges. Confirm coverage in writing before the rotation begins, name the dates, and keep the reply. If it is not arranged, say so in writing at the time rather than after the evaluation.

What schools get wrong

“Auto-captions are enough.” Automatic captioning is frequently unusable for technical, accented or fast speech, and error rates in specialist vocabulary are high. Effective communication is measured by whether you actually received the content.

“Sit at the front and lip-read.” Speechreading recovers a fraction of speech, and masks, beards, turned heads and unpredictable speakers make it worse. It is not an auxiliary aid.

“We will provide notes instead.” Notes are not access to a live discussion, and they arrive after the discussion is over.

“The interpreter did not turn up, so we rescheduled you.” A missed session is a denial of access on that day. Document each one; a pattern is far more persuasive than a single complaint.

Technical standards used as a wall. Deaf physicians, nurses, dentists and lawyers practise. A programme asserting that hearing is essential has to show it for the specific competency, and be able to explain why the accommodations used successfully elsewhere in the profession will not work.

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

Can my school make me pay for an interpreter?

No. Auxiliary aids and services are provided at the institution’s expense.

Can they insist on captions instead of the interpreter I asked for?

Only if the alternative is equally effective. A public institution must give primary consideration to the method you request, and a departure from it needs a reason it can articulate.

What if my department says there is no budget?

Undue burden is assessed against the institution’s overall resources, not one department’s budget line. Put the request in writing to the disability services office and to the institution’s 504 coordinator.

Who arranges access on a clinical rotation?

The programme that arranged the placement. Confirm it in writing before the rotation starts, and raise any gap at the time rather than after the evaluation.

Do videos in my course have to be captioned?

If they carry course content, access to that content has to be effective. Ask for captioning in advance rather than after you have missed the material.

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.