## Facts

- Mandi Hayden was a student at the College of the Redwoods, operated by the Redwoods Community College District.
- Hayden had an impairment that totally prevented her from hearing.
- Hayden applied to the college’s Disabled Student Programs and Services (DSPS) office for accommodations, specifically requesting an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter.
- Over the following years, the college provided Hayden interpreter services through several different interpreters, but she did not receive a single full-time interpreter and did not have an interpreter for all classes.
- The college offered additional auxiliary aids and services, including notetakers and audiotaping, and also offered captioning and transcription services.
- Hayden declined captioning and transcription services and maintained that a live ASL interpreter was necessary for her to have access comparable to hearing students.
- The college asserted that providing a full-time interpreter selected by Hayden would cost approximately 7% of the DSPS budget.
- Hayden sued under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging the college failed to provide effective communication and equal access.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on various issues, including whether the college’s offered aids were sufficient and whether Hayden’s requested interpreter arrangement would create undue financial or administrative burdens.

## Issues

1. Whether the college violated Title II of the ADA and § 504 by failing to provide Hayden a full-time ASL interpreter for all classes.
2. Whether the ADA and § 504 required the college to provide Hayden’s preferred accommodation (a full-time interpreter, selected with Hayden’s involvement) rather than alternative auxiliary aids the college offered.
3. Whether the requested full-time, student-involved interpreter arrangement would impose an undue financial burden (given the asserted 7% DSPS budget impact) or an undue administrative burden.

## Decision

- The court ruled in the college’s favor on the central dispute over Hayden’s demand for a full-time, student-selected interpreter.
- The court treated the legal obligation as providing effective auxiliary aids that give meaningful access, not providing the specific aid preferred by the student if other effective options are available.
- The court accepted evidence that providing the full-time interpreter arrangement Hayden requested would impose significant difficulty or expense in light of DSPS resources, including the claimed 7% budget impact.
- The court also credited the college’s position that requiring student participation in selecting specific interpreters could create an undue administrative burden.
- At summary judgment, the court concluded that the college’s provision of interpreter services for some classes and its offer of other recognized auxiliary aids (including notetakers, audiotaping, and offered captioning/transcription) could satisfy its obligations, particularly where Hayden rejected certain offered aids.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title II of the ADA and § 504, a public college must provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services when necessary to ensure effective communication and equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from educational programs.
- The duty is to provide an effective accommodation; a student is not automatically entitled to the particular auxiliary aid the student prefers if other options are effective.
- A public entity may consider cost and operational demands when evaluating a requested accommodation; an accommodation is not required if it would impose an undue financial burden or undue administrative burden.
- In assessing whether access was denied, courts may consider the full set of aids offered and provided, including whether the student refused auxiliary aids that are commonly used to provide access.
- Staffing and vendor decisions (including which interpreters to use) generally remain with the institution, so long as the resulting auxiliary aid is effective and complies with nondiscrimination duties.

## Conclusion

Hayden held that the ADA and § 504 did not require the Redwoods Community College District to provide a deaf student with a full-time ASL interpreter selected with the student’s involvement where the college offered other auxiliary aids and showed the requested arrangement would impose undue financial and administrative burdens, including a substantial impact on DSPS resources.


Hayden v. Redwoods Community College District, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 835, 33 NDLRP 250 (2007)