The Case Overview
In 2017, two blind students, Roy Payan and Portia Mason, sued the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. They were denied accessible course materials and software, including MyMathLab. One professor even told Mr. Payan that blind students weren't welcome in the class. The students tried to resolve the issue informally before filing suit but got nowhere.
On May 26, 2023, a Los Angeles jury awarded the students over $240,000. This outcome is rare, as few digital accessibility lawsuits in the U.S. reach a jury. This case did so only after the district contested the liability finding through years of appeals.
This analysis focuses on the institutional failures that compliance officers should recognize in their own organizations.
Case Timeline
- 2017: Payan and Mason file suit after failed attempts to get accessible materials.
- 2019: The students win on liability. The court finds textbooks, websites, databases, computer applications, and other course materials were inaccessible to screen-reader users. LACCD appeals instead of complying.
- Ninth Circuit appeal: The students win again. LACCD continues to contest the claims and threatens to seek review Assistive Technology the U.S. Supreme Court.
- December 2021: The disability community urges LACCD not to petition the Supreme Court. LACCD abandons the effort.
- May 26, 2023: The jury awards over $240,000.
- November 2024: The district judge reduces the award to $1,650, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Cummings, which limits emotional distress damages under Section 504. The students appeal.
- November 18, 2025: The Ninth Circuit hears arguments.
- March 17, 2026: The Ninth Circuit rules the jury awards were appropriate. LACCD seeks rehearing; the Ninth Circuit denies it.
- May 1, 2026: The district court reinstates the jury's original damages award.
- Current status: Plaintiffs' fee petition is pending. Under the ADA and Section 504, prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to have the defendant pay their attorneys' fees.
Institutional Failures
The record highlights failures Assistive Technology the governance level, not just the technical one.
1. No effective accommodation path for digital materials. The students' requests for accessible tools and content went unresolved. A complaint process that can't produce a fix is a missing control.
2. Inaccessible third-party software. MyMathLab, a third-party product, Web Accessibility Specialist used without confirming screen-reader usability. This is an Accessible Procurement failure.
3. Inaccessible core content across multiple channels. Problems in textbooks, websites, databases, and applications suggest no inventory, no ownership, and no Conformance Testing program covering instructional technology.
4. Lack of faculty awareness and accountability. A professor's comment that blind students weren't welcome reflects an absence of training and enforcement.
5. Litigation instead of remediation. After losing on liability in 2019, the district appealed rather than fixing the problems. Eight years later, the plaintiffs were still litigating. This is a risk management failure with a public price tag.
Legal Standards and Requirements
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program receiving federal financial assistance. Public colleges are covered. Students must have equal opportunities to benefit from educational programs.
ADA Title II applies to public entities, including community college districts, and requires effective communication and equal access to services, programs, and activities. If your institution selects and requires a tool, access to that tool is your obligation.
The DOJ Final Rule (2024) under ADA Title II sets a technical benchmark: WCAG 2.1 Level AA for web content and mobile apps of state and local government entities. Public colleges should treat this as the minimum standard. For screen-reader users, critical success criteria include 1.1.1 (Non-text Content), 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships), 2.1.1 (Keyboard), and 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value). Math content and interactive homework tools often fail these.
The case also highlights remedies. The Cummings decision limits emotional distress damages under Section 504, and the district court used it to reduce the verdict. The Ninth Circuit's ruling reinstating the awards matters for how institutions should model their exposure. Don't rely on a remedies ceiling that may not hold.
Action Items for Your Team
Create a request-to-remedy pipeline. Document how a student, employee, or customer requests an accessible format, who owns the response, and the maximum time to deliver. Test it with a mock request. If no one can say who fixes the problem, you have the same gap LACCD had.
Inventory every third-party tool in the instructional or service workflow. Require an Accessibility Conformance Report based on the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template, then verify it with your own Screen Reader Testing. Vendor paperwork isn't evidence of access.
Write accessibility into contracts. Make conformance to WCAG 2.1 AA a procurement requirement with remediation commitments and exit rights. This is Accessible Procurement as a control, not a slogan.
Train and hold accountable the people who deliver content. Faculty, instructional designers, and department staff need to know the obligation exists and what happens when they ignore it. Put accountability in the Accessibility Governance structure.
Treat an adverse liability finding as a trigger to fix, not to appeal. After the 2019 ruling, remediation would have cost less than seven more years of litigation. Brief your general counsel and board on that tradeoff before the next dispute.
Expect advocacy organizations to be involved. The National Federation of the Blind Web Accessibility Specialist a plaintiff, and a national campaign helped end LACCD's Supreme Court push. Assume that a visible dispute will draw organized scrutiny.
Budget for fees and delay. Fee-shifting means the losing institution pays both sides' costs. A pending fee petition is a reminder that the verdict isn't the final bill.
The practical test is simple. If a blind student told your institution tomorrow that a required tool doesn't work with a screen reader, could you name the person who fixes it, the date it will be fixed, and the interim accommodation? If not, start there.
