Process for Determining a Fundamental Alteration of a Course

This process has been developed through collaboration between Disability Access and Compliance (DAC), Disabled Students’ Program (DSP), DSP Faculty Liaisons, Academic Senate leadership, and the Vice Provost for Faculty and in consultation with the Office of Legal Affairs.

The process is consultative and deliberative. Both the DSP Specialist and the instructor are key to the success of this process and should engage in discussion and collaborate to develop a reasonable accommodation. Ensuring a thorough, prompt, and equitable process is critical, as UC policy requires timely accommodation in order to ensure disabled students’ equal access to their academic programs. 

A fundamental alteration is defined as any change to a course curriculum or course of study that is so significant that it alters the required objectives or content of the curriculum in the approved course outline of the course.A course goal or objective is defined as the learning outcome of the course; or the knowledge that the instructor expects the students in the course to acquire, and demonstrate mastery of, in course assessments. 

While any concern regarding fundamental alteration is being resolved, the accommodation proposed by DSP must be provided by the instructor (if possible) until it is determined through the process described below that an accommodation fundamentally alters the course. 

If an instructor raises a concern regarding fundamental alteration but then does not respond to DSP’s request for information that is necessary to resolve that concern, or otherwise doesn’t participate in a timely manner in the process described below, then DSP will finalize the appropriate accommodation without further consideration of the instructor’s concern.

The process for addressing a fundamental alteration resulting from an accommodation is generally as follows:

1. DSP determines an appropriate accommodation for a student with a disability without the instructor’s input.
2. Notice of the accommodation is shared with the course instructor and/or proxy via a Letter of Accommodation (LOA), (or via an email in the case of accommodations that may be significantly nuanced in their implementation, such as remote attendance accommodations or memory-aid accommodations). The instructor and/or proxy must read the LOA or email in a timely manner, generally within five business days after the academic term has started. (N.B. LOAs could be received at any time during a semester.)
3. If the instructor does not notify DSP in a timely manner that the accommodation may fundamentally alter the course, then the instructor is responsible for implementing it.
4. If the instructor is concerned that the accommodation fundamentally alters the course, then the instructor must with all deliberate speed (generally within three business days) notify the DSP Specialist listed on the LOA of their concerns.
5. The student’s assigned DSP Specialist and the course instructor then engage in written communication to discuss the instructor’s concerns. The email conversation may include:
   1. Discussion of tools or resources needed to implement the accommodation.
   2. Whether the accommodation would require substantial course or program alteration which could include affecting the course learning outcomes stated on the course syllabus.
   3. Whether the accommodation would lower academic standards.
   4. Possible alternative accommodations that would allow for the student to have equal access to the course.
6. During this discussion, as appropriate, the instructor will usually be asked by DSP to provide a copy of their syllabus and other relevant course materials (such as grading rubrics or assignment descriptions) and to address four questions:
   1. What task would the academic accommodation fundamentally alter?
   2. How is that task tied to a course goal or objective?
   3. How would the student doing the task differently—or not at all—prevent them from meeting a course goal or objective?
   4. What other academic adjustments have been considered in order to accommodate the student?
7. The answers to these questions and the copy of the syllabus will be recorded in the Accessible Information Management (AIM) system.
8. If DSP and the instructor then agree that the accommodation described in the LOA is not a fundamental alteration of the course, the informal process between DSP and the instructor ends, the resolution is shared with the student, and the instructor implements the accommodation in the LOA.
9. If DSP and the instructor agree that the accommodation contained in the LOA is a fundamental alteration of the course, and if alternative accommodations have been explored and documented, then the student will be notified in writing of the outcome and the reasons why the requested accommodation was determined to be a fundamental alteration.
10. If the student disagrees with DSP and the instructor’s joint conclusion, the student may seek to appeal the decision through the DSP Complaint Resolution Process. The student also may submit a complaint to the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD).

Resolution of Disagreements between DSP and Instructors Regarding Fundamental Alterations

If, at the end of the above process (i.e., #1-5), DSP and the instructor disagree regarding whether an accommodation would fundamentally alter the course, then:

1. A DSP supervisor or manager, if not yet involved in the effort to resolve the issue, will join the conversation.
2. The Chair, Dean, or other representatives of the instructor's academic unit may be invited to communicate with the DSP supervisor and the instructor to discuss the disagreement.
3. DSP and/or the instructor may invite the ADA Coordinator or their delegate to join the conversation.
4. DSP and/or the instructor may invite a representative from the campus Office of Legal Affairs to join the conversation.
5. DSP will document the results of any such discussions via email to all participants in the conversation.
6. If such discussions do not lead to a resolution, then documentation of all of the above steps, including the deliberation of the four key fundamental alteration questions, is elevated by DSP to the Vice Provost for Faculty. All those involved in the above discussion are copied on the message to the Vice Provost for Faculty.
7. The Vice Provost for Faculty makes the final decision for the campus regarding the fundamental alteration concern and determines any appropriate accommodation for the course. As part of their decision-making, the Vice Provost for Faculty may ask for more information from the participants in the interactive process and may also consult with relevant subject matter experts, including the Executive Director of DSP and the campus ADA/Section 504 Compliance Officer.
8. The Vice Provost for Faculty’s determination is provided in writing to all participants in the discussion.
9. The student may submit a complaint regarding the Vice Provost for Faculty’s decision to OPHD.
10. The instructor must implement the accommodation determined by the Vice Provost for Faculty.  If the instructor does not concur with the determination of the Vice Provost for Faculty:
    1. If the instructor is an Academic Senate member, they may file a grievance with the Academic Senate Privilege & Tenure Committee.
    2. If the instructor is a Unit 18 member, they may file a grievance pursuant to the procedure contained in their current UC/AFT contract.

The filing of a grievance by an instructor does not suspend the instructor’s obligation to provide the accommodation as determined by the Vice Provost for Faculty.

Documentation

In accordance with the UC Records Management Policy, and applicable policies, all documentation must be retained from this process and will be recorded in the student’s record in DSP’s data management system, AIM.

Timing

The process described above should be completed as soon as possible, typically within two weeks. If there are delays in the process, the reason(s) for those delays must be documented.

The “Undue Burden” Response

An academic adjustment constitutes an undue burden when it creates unreasonable financial or administrative costs. This argument is almost never successful because the University must consider “all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity.” This basically means the budget of the whole campus. Unreasonable administrative burden is similarly hard to demonstrate because it requires showing that the adjustment sought is administratively unfeasible, e.g., the creation of an alternate exam format that would require two years to construct.