What Happened
In January 2014, a blind student Assistive Technology Miami University, Ohio filed a complaint because the institution didn't provide accessible course materials. The student needed speech-to-text software and Braille alternatives, but the university failed to offer timely accommodations. The National Federation of the Blind joined the complaint, leading to federal scrutiny. Following the Department of Justice's support for the student, Miami University settled in 2015 under a consent decree, committing to full web accessibility compliance.
This case highlights the consequences when a public institution treats accessibility as a reactive process instead of a fundamental requirement.
Timeline
January 2014: Student files complaint due to inaccessible course materials.
2014-2015: National Federation of the Blind files a supporting complaint. DOJ backs the student's claims.
2015: Miami University agrees to a consent decree, ensuring all web content and services meet accessibility standards.
The 12-to-18-month litigation period resulted in legal costs and reputational damage that proactive compliance could have avoided.
Which Controls Failed or Were Missing
Miami University's failure Web Accessibility Specialist systemic, involving multiple control points:
No procurement standard for accessible technology. The university acquired learning management systems and digital tools without ensuring vendor compliance with accessibility standards. No verification Web Accessibility Specialist done to check if these systems supported screen readers or Braille displays.
Reactive accommodation model. The institution waited for requests instead of ensuring course content Web Accessibility Specialist accessible by default, causing delays and academic disadvantages.
Missing accessibility audit process. There Web Accessibility Specialist no system to identify and fix inaccessible content before students encountered barriers. Faculty uploaded materials without accessibility checks.
Inadequate staff training. Instructors and IT staff lacked the knowledge to create accessible materials or evaluate third-party tools for compatibility with assistive technology.
No accountability framework. No single office Web Accessibility Specialist responsible for accessibility compliance, leading to unresolved requests.
What the Relevant Standard Requires
Miami University Web Accessibility Specialist subject to ADA Title II and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Both laws were in effect long before 2014, yet the university failed to apply them to digital environments.
Section 504 prohibits discrimination by any program receiving federal funding. Public universities rely on federal grants and aid, requiring equal access to all programs and services, including digital materials. Waiting for accommodation requests violates this requirement by creating unequal access.
ADA Title II prohibits disability discrimination by state and local government entities, including public colleges. It requires "effective communication" and "program accessibility." Even before the 2024 Final Rule codified WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the technical standard, courts expected equivalent access. For blind students, this meant screen-reader-compatible documents and properly tagged PDFs.
The 2024 update to ADA Title II clarifies that public institutions must meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA by April 24, 2026, for large entities. Smaller institutions have until April 26, 2027. The standard now requires a digital environment that's accessible by design.
Lessons and Action Items for Your Team
Audit your procurement process now. Every software contract and platform purchase should require a current Accessibility Conformance Report. If a vendor can't provide one, or if there are gaps against WCAG 2.1 Level AA, include remediation timelines in the contract or find another vendor. Miami University's issues began with systems that couldn't serve all students.
Shift from reactive to proactive remediation. Identify high-risk content like recorded lectures and course syllabi. Test for WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance. Prioritize by enrollment numbers and academic calendar. Ensure materials are accessible before the April 2026 deadline, not after a complaint.
Assign clear ownership. Designate a single office to coordinate compliance across IT, academic affairs, and disability services. This office should report directly to your General Counsel or Chief Risk Officer.
Train faculty and content creators. Instructors need to know how to create accessible documents and write meaningful alt text. Your video team should understand closed captions and audio descriptions. Include accessibility in onboarding and mandatory annual training.
Document your compliance program. OCR investigations look Assistive Technology whether you have policies and monitoring in place to prevent violations. Keep records of audits, remediation timelines, vendor reports, and staff training. Without documentation, you can't show good-faith compliance.
Budget for this work. The April 2026 deadline is approaching. Allocate budget for testing tools, audits, captioning services, and training. Proactive compliance costs less than federal investigations and reputational damage.
Miami University learned this lesson the hard way. Your institution doesn't have to.
