An Administrator's Guide to California Private School Law

Chapter 9 – Interactive Process: Employees and Students

b. What Activities Are Covered? The exemption covers all the activities of a religious entity, whether religious or secular. For example, a religious congregation that operates a day care center and a private elementary school for members and nonmembers alike would be exempt from Title III requirements. 1605 However, in instances where a private entity rents a religious entity’s facilities to operate a place of public accommodation, the private entity is not exempt, unless it is also a religious entity. Notably, where the facilities are donated by a religious entity to a nonreligious organization, the nonreligious organization would be exempt from Title III. 1606 In either instance, however, the religious entity would remain exempt, even if its tenant is covered. 1607 C. W HAT D ISCRIMINATION A GAINST S TUDENTS IS P ROHIBITED UNDER T ITLE III OF THE ADA? 1. D ENIAL O F P ARTICIPATION Title III of the ADA prohibits discriminatory denial of services or benefits to individuals with disabilities. 1608 Title III applies to both current students and student applicants. Schools subject to Title III are prohibited from the use of “eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability.” 1609 For example, schools may not make oral or written pre-admission inquiries as to whether an applicant is disabled. Similarly, they may not include on their admissions applications a request for voluntary self-identification of an applicant’s disability. Also, an interviewer may not ask an applicant whether he or she is disabled. A school may, however, ask applicants to identify needed accommodations and ask them about disabilities after making an offer to attend the school. Sjostrand v. Ohio State University 1610

While the Sjostrand case involved a university student, the case provides guidance in the private school context. Caitlin Sjostrand graduated magna cum laude from Ohio State University in only two and a half years. When she applied for the university’s PhD. Program in School Psychology, her GPA was tied for highest in the applicant pool and her GRE scores were well above the university’s requirements. She was interviewed separately by two professors in the program. Ultimately, the university rejected Sjostrand from the program. Sjostrand called the university to inquire about the reasons it rejected her. After several weeks had passed, the university responded to her, but only told her that she was “not a good fit” for the program. The head of the program emailed Sjostrand a list of the supposed reasons for her rejection a few days later and stated that she would be a better fit for school counseling than school psychology.

An Administrator’s Guide to California Private School Law ©2019 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 360