## Facts

- Roy Payan and Portia Mason, blind students at Los Angeles City College (LACC), registered with the college’s disability services office and received approved accommodations, including accessible electronic text and other classroom aids.
- Both students relied on screen-reading software to access digital course content.
- They encountered barriers to meaningful access, including inaccessible in-class materials, delayed or missing accessible textbooks, screen-reader-incompatible educational software, and inaccessible websites and student portals.
- Library and research databases were not systematically checked for accessibility; problems were addressed only after complaints, causing delays and interfering with coursework.
- The students and two advocacy organizations sued the Los Angeles Community College District under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging both systemic barriers and failures to implement individualized accommodations.
- The district court required plaintiffs to present their disability discrimination case only under a disparate impact theory, entered judgment for plaintiffs, issued a permanent injunction mandating broad remedial measures, and (after a jury finding of deliberate indifference as to Payan) awarded him compensatory damages.

## Issues

1. Whether disparate impact disability discrimination claims under Title II and § 504 remain privately enforceable after Alexander v. Sandoval.
2. Whether Title II and § 504 permit three distinct theories of liability—disparate treatment, disparate impact, and failure to make reasonable accommodations—and whether the district court erred by forcing all claims into a disparate impact framework.
3. Whether specific barriers (e.g., delayed accessible textbooks and inaccessible course materials) should be analyzed as individualized failures to accommodate rather than solely as disparate impact.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that Sandoval did not abrogate circuit precedent recognizing a private right of action for disparate impact disability claims under Title II and § 504.
- The court reaffirmed that disability discrimination claims may proceed under disparate treatment, disparate impact, or failure to make reasonable accommodations.
- The court ruled the district court erred by requiring plaintiffs to litigate all claims exclusively as disparate impact claims.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, vacated the judgment and injunction, and remanded for claim-by-claim analysis under the appropriate theory (disparate impact and/or failure to accommodate), depending on the nature of each alleged barrier.

## Legal Principles

- In the Ninth Circuit, private plaintiffs may bring disparate impact claims for disability discrimination under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- Title II and § 504 recognize three distinct liability theories: disparate treatment, disparate impact, and failure to provide reasonable accommodations (or modifications/auxiliary aids).
- Disparate impact focuses on facially neutral policies or practices that impose disproportionate burdens on people with disabilities; failure to accommodate focuses on implementing reasonable measures for known, individualized needs.
- Courts must not collapse distinct theories by requiring all disability discrimination allegations to be litigated under a single doctrinal framework; each alleged barrier must be evaluated under the theory that fits the claim.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit preserved private disparate impact actions under Title II and § 504, reaffirmed the availability of multiple theories of disability discrimination, and remanded because the district court improperly restricted the case to disparate impact rather than assessing individualized accommodation failures alongside systemic barriers.


Payan v. L.A. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 11 F.4th 729 (9th Cir. 2021)