UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION...Mailed to 1570 S. Main St., St. Charles, MO 63303 Attention to [HR Generalist] 3. A letter from your school stating you are eligible for an

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

ONE PETTICOAT LANE

1010 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 320

KANSAS CITY, MO 64106

REGION VII

KANSAS

MISSOURI

NEBRASKA

OKLAHOMA

SOUTH DAKOTA

May 4, 2017

XXXXX XXXXX, Esq.

XXXXX XXXXX, P.C.

XXXX XXXXX, Suite XXXXX

XXXXX, XXXXX XXXXX

[email protected]

Re: Docket No. 07132233

Dear Ms. XXXXX:

On May 20, 2013, the U.S. Department of Education (Department), Office for Civil Rights

(OCR), received a complaint against Webster University (University) – Webster Groves

Campus, St. Louis, Missouri (Webster Groves Campus), alleging discrimination on the basis of

race (African American).

Specifically, the Complainant alleged the University discriminated against her on the basis of

race when she was forced to withdraw from her counseling practicum at the Webster Grove

campus because she was not provided with the required recommendation from a staff member at

a second University campus, in Rolla, Missouri (Rolla Campus).

OCR is responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI),

42 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 2000d, and its implementing regulation, 34 Code of Federal

Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 100. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or

national origin by recipients of Federal financial assistance (FFA).

As a recipient of FFA from the Department, the University is subject to Title VI. Additional

information about the laws OCR enforces is available on our website at http://www.ed.gov/ocr.

Throughout this letter, the Complainant’s name is not used; she is simply referred to as the

Complainant. To protect the privacy of other individuals who provided information during

OCR’s investigation, the names of employees, students, and other parties also were not used.

OCR applies a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to determine whether the evidence is

sufficient to support a particular conclusion. Specifically, OCR examines the evidence in

support of and against a particular conclusion to determine whether the greater weight of the

http://www.ed.gov/

http://www.ed.gov/ocr

Page 2 – XXXXX XXXXX, Counsel – 07132233

evidence supports the conclusion or whether the evidence is insufficient to support the

conclusion.

OCR considered documentation the Complainant and the University submitted, from both the

Rolla and Webster Grove campuses, including the Complainant’s education records, signed

witness statements, and University policies and procedures. OCR interviewed the Complainant

and University officials, including the interim Department Chair, Practicum Instructor (and

former department chair), current Department Chair, Psychodiagnostics Professor, Techniques of

Group Counseling Professor, the Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences,

and the Grievance Coordinator. The Director of Clinical Studies has since left the University

and was out of the country and unavailable for an OCR interview. OCR also interviewed

Bridgeway Behavioral Health’s (Bridgeway) Human Resource Generalist and the students in the

Complainant’s Techniques of Group Counseling Course.

Legal Standards

The regulation implementing Title VI at 34 C.F.R. § 100.3(a) provides that “[no] person in the

United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from

participation in, be denied the benefits of or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any

program to which this part applies.” The Title VI regulation at 34 C.F.R. §100.3(b)(1)(iii)

specifically prohibits a recipient from subjecting an individual to separate treatment, on the

ground of race, color, or national origin, in any matter related to his or her receipt of any service

or benefit under the recipient’s program. A recipient subjects an individual to different treatment

on the basis of race where it effectively causes, encourages, accepts, tolerates, or fails to correct a

racially hostile environment of which it has notice.

Different, or disparate, treatment is a legal theory that requires a finding of intentional

discrimination on the basis of race, and evidence of discriminatory intent may be direct or

circumstantial. OCR initially examines whether there is direct evidence of discriminatory bias

by a recipient based on race. Direct evidence includes conduct or statements by persons

involved in the decision-making process that may be viewed as directly reflecting the alleged

discriminatory attitude. However, stray remarks in the educational environment, statements by

people who are not decision-makers, and statements by decision-makers unrelated to the

decisional process generally do not constitute direct evidence. Any direct evidence of

discrimination must show that discrimination motivated the denial of an educational benefit or

other adverse action.

In cases where there is no direct evidence of discrimination or the direct evidence is not strong,

OCR analyzes the case using the general prima facie case for race discrimination, which requires

a showing of the following elements: 1) the Complainant’s race or national origin; 2) the

Complainant is otherwise qualified for the benefit in question; 3) the entity receives FFA; and 4)

the entity alleged to have discriminated denied the Complainant an opportunity to participate in

or benefit from the entity alleged to have discriminated ’s services, programs, or activities, or

otherwise discriminated against the Complainant because of his race or national origin.


Under the burden-shifting framework, if a prima facie case is established, an inference of

discrimination is created and OCR then provides the entity alleged to have discriminated an

opportunity to rebut the inference by offering a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the

denial of benefit or other adverse action. OCR then examines the entity alleged to have

discriminated proffered reason for its action to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to

support a conclusion the proffered reason is actually a pretext for discrimination.

In determining whether the Complainant was treated differently than other students because of her

race, OCR may consider how similarly situated students were treated. However, the burden of

establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous and detailed comparative

evidence is generally addressed at the pretext stage rather than the fourth element of the prima facie

case.

Findings of Fact

The Complainant attended the University’s Rolla campus and was enrolled in the Master of Arts

in Counseling program for the Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 semesters. During the Spring 2012

semester the Complainant took two courses at the Rolla campus and two courses at the Webster

Groves campus.

In March 2012 the Complainant transferred to the Webster Groves campus and took one class

during the Summer 2012 semester, and two classes during the Fall 2012 semester. The classes

the Complainant took at Webster Groves did not include clinical components.

For the Spring 2013 semester, the Complainant enrolled in a practicum class which required her

to make arrangements with a private counseling site to complete field work. The Complainant

arranged to complete her fieldwork at Bridgeway Behavioral Health (Bridgeway).

On October 10, 2012, Bridgeway’s HR Generalist (HR Generalist) sent an email to the

Complainant to inform her that she needed to submit the following to begin her practicum at

Bridgeway:

1. TB test

2. Your most recent and official transcripts (on the school’s official paper) –

Mailed to 1570 S. Main St., St. Charles, MO 63303 Attention to [HR

Generalist]

3. A letter from your school stating you are eligible for an internship, how many

hours are needed, and what program you are currently studying (mailed,

emailed, or faxed)

Once all of this is received, you may begin your internship with Bridgeway.

OCR interviewed the HR Generalist who stated that Bridgeway has required a letter from the

University on behalf of interns (eligibility letter) since she began in 2011. She stated the

eligibility letter states+ that the student is ready to begin a practicum and must confirm that the


student had taken the required prerequisites. She stated the letter was not intended to be an

evaluation of each student’s skills since the goal of the practicum was to teach students these

skills. The HR Generalist told OCR she emails these requirements to students who are interested

in becoming interns.

According to Interim Chair of the Counseling Department (Department Chair) and the former

department chair who was the Complainant’s practicum instructor (Practicum Instructor), the

counseling department at the University interprets Bridgeway’s request for the eligibility letter as

seeking an “institutional letter”—that is, a letter verifying that the student has completed the

proper prerequisites to do field work and also verifying that the student is prepared to work with

clients. The Department Chair said that the department sees the eligibility letter as endorsing the

student’s academic and clinical abilities.

According to the Department Chair, students who choose Bridgeway as their practicum/

internship site need to obtain the eligibility letter from an instructor who is knowledgeable about

the student’s clinical skills.

The Practicum Instructor told OCR she oversaw the provision of eligibility letters for a number

of students who chose Bridgeway as their practicum site while she was director of the counseling

program, and that she continues to handle requests for eligibility letters as Practicum Instructor.

The Practicum Instructor told OCR that her practice has been the same for each student who

requests a letter to complete field work at Bridgeway: (1) review the student’s academic file to

determine whether the student has met the proper perquisites; and (2) review any available

professional skills evaluation (PSE) forms for the student to confirm the student’s clinical

readiness for practicum. The Practicum Instructor stated that if the PSE forms raise any question

about the student, she will talk to the relevant instructor to verify the student’s readiness.

On December 26, 2012, during the Webster Groves campus’s winter break, the Complainant

informed the Director of Clinical Studies and her Practicum Instructor via email that she needed

the eligibility letter from the University to begin her practicum at Bridgeway and requested

information as to whom to contact.

The Practicum Instructor told OCR that in response to the Complainant’s email, she checked the

Complainant’s academic file and then requested the Complainant’s PSE forms from the Rolla

campus. The Practicum Instructor received one PSE form that was completed by the Techniques

of Group Counseling Professor (Group Professor). The Practicum Instructor stated that the

Complainant’s PSE scores were low; therefore, she determined more information would be

needed from faculty who had observed the Complainant’s professional skills.

On January 3, 2013, the Practicum Instructor sent an email to the Complainant, stating the

following.

If you have taken a skills course here at Webster Groves campus (e.g., Group),

you may ask that faculty to send an email to your advisor . . . stating you are

prepared for Practicum; if not, you will want to ask the faculty at Rolla who

taught you Group to send the email to [the Complainant’s advisor]. Also, email


[the Complainant’s advisor] the courses that you have taken (or a copy of your

official audit). Once a skills faculty has supported you to Practicum and you have

taken required prerequisites, [the Complainant’s advisor] can write the letter for

you.

The Practicum Instructor stated that the Complainant had not taken any practical skills courses at

the Webster Groves campus and, consequently, none of the Webster Groves faculty were aware

of the Complainant’s skills and could not verify her skills.

That same day, on January 3, 2013, the Complainant sent an email to her former academic

advisor at the Rolla campus (Rolla Advisor) requesting a letter for Bridgeway. The Complainant

followed up with the Rolla Advisor by text message the next day, clarifying she needed a letter

of recommendation from her Group Professor.

Between January 3 and January 7, 2013, the Practicum Instructor telephoned the Rolla campus

director for the counseling program (Rolla Director) and informed her that the Complainant

needed a clinical skills professor at Rolla to verify the Complainant’s readiness for practicum.

Between January 3 and January 7, 2013, the Rolla Director asked the Group Professor to provide

a letter for the Complainant’s practicum site that verified her readiness for practicum. The

Group Professor told OCR that he interpreted the request by the Rolla Director to be a request to

draft a letter of recommendation for the Complainant. The Group Professor stated that because

he had concerns about the Complainant’s clinical skills when she was a student in his class he

did not feel comfortable writing the letter and declined to write or otherwise assist in providing

the eligibility letter for the Complainant.

On or about January 7, 2013, the Rolla Director telephoned the Complainant and informed her

that her only clinical skills professor, the Group Professor, had declined to write her a letter.

On January 7, 2013, the Complainant sent an email to the Director of Clinical Studies and the

Department Chair requesting assistance. The Complainant expressed her frustration at the

“never ending unpleasantries” she experienced at both University campuses and the “rude”

manner in which she was informed by the Rolla campus that they would not provide her the

necessary letter.

The Department Chair responded to the Complainant by email dated January 8, 2014. He stated

the following:

Thanks for reaching out to us regarding your situation. From what I have

gathered, the site you have chosen has requested a letter from Webster which

indicates you have met the prerequisites for the course and have the appropriate

skill set. The Rolla campus was the appropriate site to request this information

given you spent the majority of your education at that site. It appears that the

faculty at the site will not write a letter of support. We respect the judgment of the

faculty at the Rolla campus. Nonetheless, I have requested that they send a copy

of your transcript and any PSE forms to assess your qualifications for the site in

question. If there is compelling reason to override the judgment of the Rolla


faculty we will do so. However, please be aware that if that information is

supportive of the Rolla faculty decision then we will not intervene.

In an interview with OCR, the Department Chair told OCR that he reviewed the Complainant’s

only PSE form from Rolla. He did not speak to anyone at Rolla, including the Group Professor,

about the Complainant or the decision not to provide an eligibility letter for the Complainant.

The Department Chair told OCR that he relied on the PSE form and the expertise of the Rolla

faculty when he decided not to override the Group Professor’s decision not to provide the

eligibility letter.

The Department Chair told OCR that he has never met the Complainant and did not know what

her race was. He explained that he only communicated with her through emails.

Also on January 8, 2013, the Complainant emailed another Rolla professor, requesting that she

write the eligibility letter. The Rolla professor declined, stating: “Your recommendations must

come from professors who are familiar with your work in the past year.”

The practicum class began on January 8, 2013. Webster Groves permitted the Complainant to

attend the class even though her practicum site was not yet secure.

On January 9, 2013, the Complainant sent a facsimile to the Rolla campus asking for copies of

all of her PSE forms. After receipt, the Complainant reviewed the PSE form, and noted the

Group Professor had rated her clinical skills primarily with 0s (does not meet criteria for

program level competency) and 1s (meets criteria marginally and/or inconsistently for program

level competency), and a handful of 2s – meets criteria adequately for program level

competency.

The Complainant then emailed the Department Chair and the Practicum Instructor, stating:

I spoke in length with [the Practicum Instructor] following last night’s class. I

informed [the Practicum Instructor] at this time that whatever issues [the Rolla

Techniques of Group Counseling Professor] has with me is personal and

unbecoming of a college university professor.

As you may be aware I received a grade of (A-) in his class, techniques of group

counseling.

I received an unsigned PSE review from the Rolla campus today dated 3/3/12 that

contradicts the grade of A- given by the same professor.

I need this letter prior to next Tuesday 1/15/2013 as to not fall behind in

practicum requirements and lose my site.

In an email from the Director of Clinical Studies to the Complainant that was also sent to the

Department Chair and the Practicum Instructor, the Director of Clinical Studies stated:


I have reviewed [Complainant’s] degree audit and she has met the prerequisites

for the practicum course Counseling 6000. In response to the letter needed for

her internship site, I can only speak on her completion of the prerequisites and

not her skill set. Her evaluation of her skills set will have come from an

instructor who has assessed her skills. I have listed her completed prerequisites

below.

On January 13, 2013, the Complainant emailed the Practicum Instructor requesting an update on

her request for the eligibility letter.

The Complainant stated in her complaint that on January 14, 2013, she spoke with the Practicum

Instructor informing the instructor that the HR Generalist at Bridgeway contacted her and told

her that she needed a letter from the University stating her eligibility for the practicum. The

Complainant asked the Practicum Instructor to contact the HR Generalist.

By email dated January 14, 2013, the Complainant asked her Psychodiagnostics Professor at

Webster Groves if she would provide a letter of readiness to Bridgeway. The Psychodiagnostics

Professor responded that she would.

The Psychodiagnostics Professor told OCR that she was willing to write a recommendation letter

for the Complainant and she considered the Complainant to be a delight in her class. However,

the Psychodiagnostics Professor received an email from the Department Chair before she could

provide the Complainant’s letter that advised her the letter had to come from the University and

was not a typical “recommendation letter.” As a result, she told the Complainant to contact the

Department Chair to work out getting the eligibility letter.

In a subsequent email to the Psychodiagnostics Professor, the Complainant stated the following:

The letter was for Bridgeway counseling, speaking to my readiness to start

practicum based on your observation of me. However, due to medical reasons

mostly, but also an over abundance unnecessary stress and a total disregard for

me as a human being and a student from several of Webster’s staff members I

have withdrawn.

The Complainant withdrew from the practicum course on or about January 15, 2013, during the

second week of the Spring 2013 semester. According to the Complainant, she withdrew because

she could not complete the practicum course without a practicum site. According to University,

when speaking with the Practicum Instructor and the Psychodiagnostics Professor, the

Complainant cited health reasons as the motivation for her withdrawal.

Multiple witnesses interviewed by OCR stated that Bridgeway was the only site at the time that

required an eligibility letter. Witnesses from the Department told OCR that they suggested the

Complainant either find a different practicum site or enroll in a clinical skills class at Webster

Groves to improve her skills.


Comparators

In April 2014, the University identified six other students who completed internships/practicums

at Bridgeway in the Fall 1, 2012 and Spring 1, 2013 semesters. The HR Generalist at Bridgeway

provided the information she had on file regarding the six other students’ readiness for

practicum.

In the Spring 1, 2013 semester, two other students completed practicums at Bridgeway—the

same semester as the Complainant enrolled and attempted to complete practicum at Bridgeway.

Those two students were both white females (Practicum Students 1 and 2).

The eligibility letter for Practicum Student 1 (white female) was sent by the Director of Clinical

Studies, dated January 7, 2013. It stated the following:

[Practicum Student 1] is currently pursuing her Master of Arts in Counseling with

an emphasis in Professional Mental Health Program. She has completed the

required courses to pursue field experience. She has been approved to complete

her hours at Bridgeway. Students are to complete the 110/40 hours within the 9

week practicum time frame and then, move forward to internship. Student interns

are to complete the 600/240n hours within the registered terms of internship.

The letter Bridgeway had on file for Practicum Student 2 (white female) was an email forwarded

by student from the Practicum Instructor, dated June 21, 2012. It stated the following:

I am the Counseling Program Practicum faculty supervisor at Webster University

and will be working with you to train our student [Practicum Student 2]. Please

let this email serve to inform Bridgeway that [Practicum Student 2] has met all

requirements to begin her field experience. In fact, she has completed all course

work with the exception of field experience, and has received honorable grades.

I will be in touch at the beginning and throughout the summer term. Please let

me know if you need more before then.

For the Fall 2012 semester, four students completed practicum at Bridgeway (Practicum Students

3-6). Bridgeway provided OCR with the eligibility letters on file for all of the students but

Practicum Student 6, for whom Bridgeway could not locate any records.

The letter Bridgeway had on file for Practicum Student 3 (white female) was an email provided

by the Director of Clinical Studies, dated May 21, 2012. It stated the following:

[Practicum Student 3] has 24 hours completed and she is in the 48 hour program

- Community Counseling. She is eligible for practicum and internship. Please let

me know if you need anything else, thank you very much …

The letter Bridgeway had on file for Practicum Student 4 (black female) was provided by the

Practicum Instructor, dated November 27, 2012. It stated the following:


Please accept this letter as confirmation that [Practicum Student 4], graduate

counseling student at Webster University, is prepared to continue her internship

by transferring to Bridgeway. We appreciate the opportunity you are providing

her and look forward to working with you. As you likely know, [Practicum

Student 4] has completed her Practicum and ¼ of her internship; she will have 27

weeks of internship to complete beginning January 2013. [Practicum Student 4]

searched for a new site due to a lack of clinical hours at her current location.

The letter Bridgeway had on file for Practicum Student 5 (black female) was an email provided

by the Director of Clinical Studies, dated May 30, 2012. It stated the following:

[Practicum Student 5] consented for me to email you the following information.

She is studying Master of Arts in Counseling. Emphasis in Marriage, Family and

Child Counseling.

She is eligible for practicum/internship (field experience).

Her hours for field experience include: 600 hour requirement for the course, 240

of which are required to be direct/face to face with clients.

For Practicum, ensure the site supervisor understands that you will need to

complete 40 direct hours (5-7 hours per week) in one 9 week term. Direct hours

are defined as counseling fact o face with individuals and groups.

For internship, ensure the site supervisor understands that you will need to

complete 60 direct hours (8-10 hours per week) in one 9 week term.

In a signed written statement to OCR, the Chair of the Professional Counseling Program told

OCR that during a telephone conversation with the Complainant in April 2013, she told the

Complainant that if she would find a different practicum site her problem would be resolved

because most sites do not require a letter of preparedness for field experience from the

University.

The Department Associate explained in a signed written statement that she spoke to the

Complainant by telephone and the Complainant requested to drop the practicum class. The

Complainant informed her that she wanted to drop the course because she had a number of health

issues that she needed to attend to. The Complainant also told the current Department Chair she

wanted to withdraw. The Practicum Instructor told OCR that the Complainant told her that the

Complainant was dropping the practicum class because she needed to have eye surgery.

The Complainant’s Grievance

The University sets forth its general grievance policy in a document entitled “Grievance Policy

and Procedures” (GPP). The GPP includes both informal and formal procedures for resolving


grievances. The GPP’s introduction notes that formal procedures are generally reserved for

situations where the informal procedures have been ineffective but “[a]n exception to this is a

grievance related to an alleged violation of an individual's civil rights.”

The GPP “applies to all students, faculty members, and staff members of the University and to

issues involving other employees, students, and/or third parties with contractual relationships

with the University. These Grievance Procedures are not applicable to complaints that have other

internal remedies in place. ”

The GPP designates that the Grievance Coordinator for students is the Dean of Students or his or

her designee.

The GPP defines “grievance” as “an allegation by an individual based on specific facts that there

has been a misinterpretation, misapplication, discriminatory application, or violation of a

University Policy or Procedure.” It further states that “legally prohibited unequal treatment

including but not limited to discrimination or harassment on the basis of age, sex, race, religion,

color, ethnic/national origin, disability, sexual orientation or veteran status” is an issue that may

be grieved.

The GPP notes that “grade disputes, admissions decisions, graduation appeals and similar

academic decisions are not grievable issues, unless they are complaints of a civil rights nature,

including complaints related to age, sex, race, religion, color, ethnic/national origin, disability,

sexual orientation or veteran status.”

The Civil Rights Complaints section of the GPP provides, in relevant part:

A grievance involves the civil rights of an individual when age, sex, race, religion,

color, ethnic/national origin, disability, sexual orientation or veteran status is the

primary cause of the grievance. If the Grievant thinks that his or her civil rights

are involved in a grievance, the Affirmative Action Officer of the University or the

Director for Human Resources should be consulted prior to or at the same time of

the initiation of the grievance procedure. Following that notification, grievances

which involve civil rights may be submitted to the grievance process.

Under the law, persons having grievances concerning civil rights issues

(discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race, religion, color, ethnic/national

origin, disability, or veteran status) cannot be required to use internal procedures

before filing a complaint with an agency external to the University. It must be

noted, however, that both the administrators of the University and the external

agencies recommend the use of internal processes before initiation of external

resolution processes. Still, an individual has the right at any time to use

procedures and agencies external to the University.

According to the GPP, if a grievance is not successfully resolved through informal means, the

grievance will be submitted to the appropriate Grievance Coordinator. Then, a “Grievance

Hearing Panel will be convened to determine whether the issue qualifies as a grievance as

defined by this Policy and, if so, to hear the grievance and make recommendations on the action,

if any, to be taken.”


Each Grievance Hearing Panel is comprised of five members of the Dispute Resolution

Committee, which is a group of 30 members of the University community with equal

representation from three constituencies: students, faculty, and staff. The GPP states:

The Grievance Hearing Panel will review documentation related to the grievance,

and take testimony from the Grievant, Respondent, and witnesses presented by

both parties. Based on the evidence presented, the Panel will reach a

determination with respect to the issue(s) presented. The Grievance Hearing

Panel's determination and recommendations, based on a simple majority vote,

will be forwarded to the appropriate Grievance Coordinator who will transmit

them to the appropriate Vice President(s) of the University and the Executive

Assistant to the President.

The decision of the Vice President(s) is final at the institutional level.

The University has a separate Grade Appeals policy to address grade or other academic disputes

which states:

Normally, grade disputes should be resolved between the student and the

instructor. Students may discuss any grade with the instructor. A student who

believes he/she has received a grade of NC, C or F that is arbitrary or assigned

for nonacademic reasons may discuss the grade with the appropriate chair in St.

Louis, or the site director at extended campuses. If the grade dispute is not

resolved within three months, the student may appeal the grade to the appropriate

dean to review the procedures the instructor used in determining the grade.

Grade appeals should be addressed in a timely manner, and are not considered

after one academic year.

Grades leading to academic warning, probation, or dismissal apply to one 3-

credit-hour course or three 1-credit-hour professional seminars. A grade of C, F,

WF, or ZF in a 6-credit-hour internship, project, or thesis is equal to two grades

of C or F for academic warning, probation, and dismissal purposes. Once a

student graduates, no further grade changes are allowed on the enrollment

record.

On January 29, 2013, the Complainant spoke to the Associate Dean of the College of Liberal

Arts and Sciences (Associate Dean) about filing a grievance. The same day, the Associate Dean

sent the Complainant an email thanking her for sharing her concerns regarding her academic

experience at the Rolla and Webster Groves campuses. The email further stated:

In order for me to formally review your situation, please document your concerns

in a letter/email, and attach any relevant information you may have. Also include

your proposed resolution in your letter. As of January 1, 2013, we have a new

Director of Counseling . . . . Know that she and I will review your concerns

together. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.


On March 11, 2013, the Complainant sent the Associate Dean an email in which she outlined the

events that led to her withdrawal and apologized for the delay in providing the information. She

further stated: “I do not understand what [Department Chair] meant when he said the matter has

been resolved,” unless the Department Chair viewed the Complainant’s withdrawal as a

resolution of the situation.

On March 21, 2013, the Complainant sent the Associate Dean a second email with more

clarifying information regarding the events surrounding her request for a letter for the practicum

site. She stated, “I was offered no just cause for this decision and was left with two choices, 1.

withdraw or 2. repeat.” She reiterated her belief that the University staff precluded her from

continuing her practicum class “not based on my academic performance [sic], but on power,

control, and personalities.” She further stated:

As a Webster University student a great part of my Rolla and Webster Grove

experiences were unjust and discriminatory. I would like further investigation,

some accountability, and personal compensation for my grief and suffering.

On March 25, 2013, the Associate Dean responded to the Complainant with an email stating she

had forwarded the Complainant’s email to the Grievance Coordinator, who was also the

Associate Dean of Students at the University. She stated the Grievance Coordinator would

follow up with the Complainant “in the near future as part of her investigation into [the

Complainant’s] complaint” and provided the Grievance Coordinator’s contact information to the

Complainant.

On March 26, 2013, the Grievance Coordinator sent the Complainant an email stating:

I received a message from academic affairs regarding your practicum experience.

I want to inform you of the grievance process in the event that you choose to file a

complaint with the university. I am including a link to the grievance policy which

will outline the process for submitting a grievance against an employee of the

university. Please let me know if you have any additional questions about the

grievance process.

[link to grievance policy]

According to the Grievance Coordinator, the Complainant submitted a grievance in late May

2013, around the time of the University’s commencement events. The Grievance Coordinator

told OCR that she received the Complainant’s grievance verbally. The Complainant told OCR

she spoke to the Grievance Coordinator on May 13, 2013.

The Grievance Coordinator told OCR that she is currently the grievance coordinator for all

University students – undergraduate and graduate. She stated that until she was directed to

handle the Complaint’s grievance in 2013, she believed she was the grievance coordinator only

for undergraduate students.

According to the Grievance Coordinator, the Complainant’s grievance addressed two issues: (1)

a racist joke in which a Rolla professor had used a racial epithet in class; and (2) the

Complainant’s inability to obtain a letter for her practicum experience.


The Grievance Coordinator reported to OCR that she concluded she had authority to investigate

the Complainant’s grievance related to the racist joke, but not the Complainant’s grievance

regarding the letter for practicum. She said she could not investigate the issue with the letter

because it was an academic matter that must be addressed through the Grade Appeals policy.

The Grievance Coordinator told OCR that it was appropriate for the Complainant to use the

Grade Appeals process even though the Complainant had raised issues of race discrimination and

the Grade Appeals process required the Complainant to address the issue with the same faculty

members and administrators who she believed had discriminated against her. The Grievance

Coordinator told OCR she alerted the Department Chair of the Complainant’s concern regarding

the practicum letter. The Grievance Coordinator believes that she advised the Complainant that

the Complainant would need to use the Grade Appeals process to address the letter.

According to the Grievance Coordinator, since she believed she did not have jurisdiction over

the practicum letter grievance, the Grievance Coordinator did not reach a final conclusion

regarding the practicum letter. Instead, on or about June 12, 2013 the Grievance Coordinator

emailed the following “brief write up” of the Complainant’s grievance to the Vice Provost’s

office, with the understanding the grievance would be handled by the counseling department:

Campuses: Rolla & Webster Groves

Program: Counseling

Issue(s): Student was not allowed to sign up for practicum based on information

sent from instructor at Rolla Campus

Facts in the case: Student received an A- in the course with the instructor who

filled out the PSE (Professional Skills Evaluation). Same professor gave the

student 0’s and 1’s on the PSE. Student reached out to chair in the department

who only went by the score on the PSE. It appears that the Chair did not look at

the student’s grades in the course and see that there was a discrepancy between

the two documents.

History of the Case:

This student started at Webster in Fall of 2011 at the Rolla Campus and received

an A, A-, and 2 B+’s

Spring of 2012 the student received a B- and an A- in her courses at the Rolla

Campus

The student also took two courses at the Webster Groves campus during this time

and received 2 C’s

Summer of 2012 the student received a B- at the Webster Groves campus

Fall of 2012 the student received an A and a B in her classes.


Special Circumstances:

Professor at the Rolla campus told a racist [expletive] joke in class. [The

Complainant] was the only African American in the class.

His colleague is [techniques of group counseling professor] who did not use any

of the student’s work in the final exam. The student went to speak to the

instructor one-on-one about this situation. The professor chose to make an

announcement in the class about the issue. The student felt that this was in

retaliation for reporting the instructor for telling the [expletive] joke in class.

The student received an A- minus in the course.

The student signed up for the practicum class, bought books and got insurance in

order to do the practicum. The site required a letter from the department. The

student reached out to the department chair, [department chair]. He sent the

student an email on 1/29/13 stating that he needed a copy of the student’s

transcripts and any PSE forms that were filled out on the student before he could

write a letter on the student’s behalf. The student was advised to drop the course

after the PSE was received. The student had never seen this PSE before, nor did

she sign it.

Current status: The student’s initial request was to obtain a letter to be able to

begin her practicum. The information in the student’s transcript and the PSE do

not correlate. It is the opinion of the grievance coordinator that this student has a

solid grievance with the university.

According to the University, the counseling department did not issue a formal response to the

June 12, 2013 grievance write-up, as the counseling department had already “thoroughly

considered” the issues involved in the grievance. Moreover, on June 26, 2013, the University

received notification of the instant complaint, and engaged legal counsel to thoroughly

investigate the Complainant’s allegation. As a result, the University felt “any further

investigation (by [the Grievance Coordinator] or anyone else) would have been superfluous and

an inefficient use of resources.”

In an interview with OCR, the Complainant confirmed that she never received a written response

to the practicum letter grievance. She has not re-enrolled in the University since the Spring 2013

experiences described herein. She did not complete her Master’s degree, and is currently

practicing in the field of social work at the Bachelor’s level.

Legal Analysis and Conclusion

The Complainant alleged that the University’s Rolla campus discriminated against her on the

basis of race by forcing her to withdraw from the counseling practicum at the University’s

Webster Groves campus because she was not provided with the required recommendation from a

staff member at the Rolla campus, the Techniques of Group Counseling Professor.


To determine whether the Complainant was forced to withdraw from the counseling practicum at

Webster Groves because she was not provided with the required recommendation from a Rolla

staff member because of her race, OCR applied a different treatment analysis. OCR examined

whether a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of race was present.

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of race in this case, OCR must find

that the University treated the Complainant differently than similarly situated individuals of

another race. OCR first determined that the Complainant is African American and was attending

the University. OCR next examined whether a representative of the University treated the

Complainant differently than similarly situated individuals of a different race, as alleged.

Although the Bridgeway program did not require a letter describing or attesting to a student’s

clinical skills, the University had adopted a practice of verifying a counseling student’s clinical

readiness before providing the requested letter to Bridgeway. The practice required a clinical

skills professor to provide a recommendation or write the letter. This practice was applied

consistently to white and black students in the Spring 1, 2013 term—the semester in which the

Complainant enrolled—and the Fall 1, 2012 term.

The preponderance of the evidence established that the Complainant was not similarly situated to

any of the students in her practicum class at Webster Groves because the Complainant was the

only student who needed input from a professor at another campus. The other students who

obtained letters of readiness for Bridgeway in both the Complainant’s semester and the prior

semester (Practicum Students 1-6), received those letters from Webster Groves faculty. The

Complainant had not completed any clinical skills courses at the Webster Groves campus and

was therefore directed to obtain her letter (or information supporting the letter) from a professor

at Rolla. Practicum Students 1-6 had taken clinical skills courses at Webster Groves and were

able to obtain their letters from Webster Groves faculty. Consequently, Practicum Students 1-6

are not similarly situated students.

Nonetheless, to the extent the Complainant may be compared to Practicum Students 1-6 because

those students successfully obtained letters to complete field work at Bridgeway in Spring 1,

2013 and Fall 1, 2012, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the Complainant

was treated differently than those students. According to the Practicum Instructor (and former

department chair), the department followed the same process for Practicum Students 1-6 as it did

with the Complainant. The department (1) checked each student’s transcript to determine

whether the student had taken the necessary courses and (2) reviewed any available PSEs to

verify each student’s readiness. Practicum Students 4 and 5, who successfully obtained letters,

were black students like the Complainant. The preponderance of the evidence does not indicate

the Complainant was treated differently with regard to the requirements to obtain a letter for

completion of practicum at Bridgeway.

Additionally, the Complainant was informed if she would find a different practicum site her

problem would be resolved because most sites do not require a letter of preparedness for field

experience from the University. The Complainant chose not to switch sites. Instead, she

dropped her practicum class and did not return to the University. Taken together, the evidence

does not establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of race.


Based on the above, OCR determined the preponderance of the evidence does not support a

finding that the University treated the Complainant differently than similarly situated students of

another race as alleged. OCR concluded there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that

the University discriminated against the Complainant as alleged.

During the investigation, OCR identified deficiencies in the University’s published grievance

procedures. OCR also identified concerns regarding the University’s handling of the

Complainant’s grievance in that the University appears not to have followed its internal

grievance policies in its response to the Complainant’s grievance. Specifically, the University did

not issue a final decision with respect to the practicum grievance raised by the Complainant.

While in its response to this complaint investigation, the University asserted it did issue a final

decision because it determined the practicum grievance was a grade dispute and not a civil rights

issue, OCR noted that the Complainant’s grievance alleged her poor PSE, which resulted in the

practicum letter issue, was the result of racial discrimination, and racial discrimination is a

grievable civil rights issue. OCR also noted that in her June 12, 2013 email, the Grievance

Coordinator opined that the Complainant had “a solid grievance with the University.”

Before OCR completed its investigation of the University’s grievance procedures – including

any changes to the grievance procedures from the 2012-13 school year through the current

school year – and the University’s handling of the Complainant’s practicum grievance, the

University requested to resolve both issues pursuant to Section 302 of OCR’s Case Processing

Manual (CPM). On May 3, 2017, the University submitted to OCR the enclosed Resolution

Agreement that, when fully implemented, will resolve both issues. Specifically, the Agreement

requires the University to: (1) revise its grievance procedures, as appropriate; (2) conduct

internal training with relevant University staff members regarding the revised grievance

procedures; and (3) provide an individual remedy to the Complainant by offering to complete the

formal grievance process.

OCR considers this complaint resolved effective the date of this letter and will monitor the

University’s implementation of the Resolution Agreement. If the University fails to fully

implement any of the provisions in the Resolution Agreement, OCR may resume its investigation

or take other action. When OCR concludes the University has fully implemented the terms of

the Agreement, OCR will close this complaint.

This letter sets forth OCR’s determination in individual OCR cases. This letter is not a formal

statement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or construed as such. OCR’s

formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR official and made available to

the public. The Complainant may have the right to file a private suit in federal court whether or

not OCR finds a violation.

Please be advised that the University may not harass, coerce, intimidate, or discriminate against

any individual because he or she has filed a complaint or participated in the complaint resolution

process. If this happens, you may file another complaint alleging such treatment.


Under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this document and related

correspondence and records upon request. In the event that OCR receives such a request, we will

seek to protect, to the extent provided by law, personally identifiable information, which, if

released, could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal

privacy.

OCR is committed to prompt and effective service. If you have any questions, please contact,

XXXXX XXXXX, Attorney, at (816) 268-XXXX (voice) or at (877) 521-2172

(telecommunications device for the deaf), or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Anne E. Bradley

Supervisory Attorney

Enclosure

Documents

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION...Mailed to 1570 S. Main St., St. Charles, MO 63303 Attention to [HR Generalist] 3. A letter from your school stating you are eligible for an