## Facts

- The University of Alabama in Birmingham (UAB), a federally funded public university, enrolled handicapped students, including a small group with significant hearing impairments.
- After a deaf student complained that UAB initially denied an interpreter at university expense, federal officials investigated UAB’s compliance with § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and related regulations.
- UAB adopted an “auxiliary aids” policy that provided certain low-cost services (e.g., note-takers and class transcriptions) but generally would not provide “costly” aids, most often sign-language interpreters.
- Under the policy, students seeking interpreters were required to give advance notice, pursue free services from state agencies, and apply for financial aid; UAB would provide an interpreter only upon proof of financial inability and lack of eligibility for outside resources.
- UAB limited auxiliary aids to degree-seeking students and refused aids to handicapped students in certain non-degree and continuing-education programs (including a special-studies division).
- The United States sued, alleging that UAB’s auxiliary-aids policy and transportation services violated § 504 and its implementing regulations.
- The district court enjoined UAB from denying auxiliary aids based on financial ability and from excluding non-degree “special” students from aid eligibility, but found UAB’s transportation accommodations reasonable.
- UAB appealed the injunction and regulatory rulings; the United States cross-appealed on transportation.

## Issues

1. Whether the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare’s § 504 regulations requiring auxiliary aids in postsecondary programs were valid as applied to federally funded universities.
2. Whether § 504 permits a university to condition “costly” auxiliary aids (such as interpreters) on a student’s financial need and prior pursuit of outside funding sources.
3. Whether § 504 permits limiting auxiliary aids to degree-seeking students while excluding qualified handicapped students in non-degree or continuing-education programs.
4. Whether UAB’s transportation services provided reasonable accommodation and meaningful equal access for disabled students.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit upheld the challenged § 504 regulations as a permissible implementation of the statute.
- The court affirmed the injunction barring UAB from conditioning auxiliary aids on students’ financial ability and from denying auxiliary aids to qualified handicapped students in covered non-degree programs.
- The court held that providing interpreters for qualified students was a reasonable accommodation and that UAB failed to show undue financial or administrative burden.
- The court reversed the district court’s finding on transportation, holding that UAB’s system was not equally accessible to disabled students and required reasonable modifications.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Regulations requiring auxiliary aids in federally funded postsecondary programs are valid where they implement § 504’s ban on disability-based exclusion and denial of benefits.
- A recipient of federal financial assistance may not shift to disabled students the primary responsibility and cost of obtaining necessary auxiliary aids by requiring exhaustion of outside resources or financial-need showings.
- Necessary auxiliary aids (including interpreters for hearing-impaired students) are a form of reasonable accommodation required to ensure effective participation, absent proof of undue burden or fundamental alteration.
- § 504 protections extend to qualified handicapped participants in all covered postsecondary programs and activities, not only traditional degree programs.
- Reasonable accommodation for services such as transportation is assessed by practical, comparative accessibility; a service that is technically available but unreliable or materially less usable for disabled students can violate § 504.

## Conclusion

The court held that § 504 and its implementing regulations required UAB to provide necessary auxiliary aids without financial-need screening or program-based exclusions and also required transportation modifications to provide disabled students access that is meaningfully equal to that of non-disabled students.


United States v. Bd. of Trs. for the Univ. of Ala., 908 F.2d 740 (11th Cir. 1990)