Office for Civil Rights Requires San Bernardino City Unified School District (CA) to Address 504 Plan and Complaint Process Concerns
OCR identifies concerns that district’s 504 plan lacked enough detail for consistent implementation, a class-wide late-work policy may not have met the student’s disability-related needs, and more...
On April 24, 2026, U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a resolution letter to San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD) in California after investigating a complaint alleging disability discrimination during the 2021–2022 school year.
OCR investigated three issues:
“Whether the District failed to provide the Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to implement his Section 504 plan in his [redacted content] language course (the Course) from November 2021 to June 2022;
“Whether the District discriminated against the Student on the basis of disability when the Student’s teacher (the Teacher) subjected the Student to alleged harassment based on disability in late January or early February 2022, creating a hostile environment for the student; and
“Whether the District failed to respond promptly and equitably to an internal complaint, made on behalf of the Student on or about March 2022, alleging discrimination based on disability and a failure to implement his Section 504 plan.”
OCR found insufficient evidence to support the disability-based harassment allegation—but it did identify concerns with the first and third issues: whether the student’s 504 plan was clear enough to be implemented consistently, whether the teacher’s class-wide extended-time policy actually met the student’s individual disability-related needs, and whether the district responded promptly and equitably to the complainant’s internal complaints.
Before OCR completed its investigation and made final compliance determinations on those issues, SBCUSD expressed interest in resolving the complaint. The district entered into a resolution agreement with OCR, without admitting to any violation of law.
What Happened
During the 2021-2022 school year, the student had a Section 504 plan “on the basis that his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) substantially impacts his major life activities of focusing on and completing assignments.”
The student’s November 4, 2021, 504 plan listed five accommodations:
“extended time on assignments;
“the opportunity to stand while working;
“seating options;
“a soundless stress device to squeeze in the classroom; and
“extended time to re-do assignments.”
Sounds simple, right? Nope. OCR pointed out that the plan did not specify the amount of extended time or the process for using the extended-time accommodations:
“The Student’s Section 504 plan does not specify the amount of time or process for implementing the two extended-time accommodations (i.e., whether teachers will offer them or the Student will request them). As a result, the School employees had varying understandings of the meaning of and process for implementing these accommodations. The Vice Principal, who attended the Student’s Section 504 meeting on November 4, 2021, told OCR that the Section 504 team did not agree on the amount of extended time for assignments and left these decisions to the discretion of the Student and his teachers. According to the Teacher, the Student did not request additional time for any assignments and did not attend after-school tutoring. The Teacher implemented a class-wide extended-time policy whereby all students had an extra week to complete assignments and students who requested additional time beyond this week were asked to attend after-school tutoring.
“The Complainant and the Teacher also described varying understandings of the meaning of and process for implementing the Student’s opportunity-to-stand accommodation. The Complainant told OCR that she understood this accommodation to allow the Student to take a walk when requested. The Teacher, on the other hand, understood this accommodation as written, but offered the Student an opportunity to take a walk in lieu of the opportunity to stand because the Student was disruptive when he stood in class. According to the Teacher, the Student regularly accepted her offer to take a walk or use the restroom in lieu of standing and did not express concern about this alternative.”
