Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company (ERSIC) has again reiterated their belief that Capella University has lied. It is fully understandable that ERSIC has refused to pay for Capella’s frivolous legal (and retaliatory) actions against the student who is suing the university. Specifically, ERSIC has stated that they deny Capella’s:
“. . .coverage exists under the policy at issue. The policy is a claims made policy that excludes coverage for claims ‘based upon, arising from, or in consequence of any . . . formal administrative or regulatory proceeding commenced by the filing of a notice of charges . . . against any Insured on or prior to the Pending or Prior date set forth in Item 6 of the Declarations, or the same or any substantially similar fact, circumstance or situation underlying or alleged therein.’
"The former student’s legal claims against Plaintiff [Capella University] commenced in California federal district court are substantially related to administrative charges of discrimination and retaliation that the former student filed against Plaintiff with the United States Department of Education before the Pending or Prior date set forth in the policy declarations.
[NOTE: Capella University purchased their policy on or about June 15, 2005, more than a full year after the student filed his initial complaint against them with the United States Department of Education (USDE). Specifically, the student filed his initial complaint against Capella University on or about April 19, 2004 – more than a full year BEFORE Capella bought their insurance policy. Numerous additional complaints with the USDE and other agencies were subsequently filed. Furthermore, the charges of discrimination and retaliation were not just “substantially related” to the USDE; they were IDENTICAL to those originally filed.]
“In addition, coverage is not available under the policy because in its application for insurance, Plaintiff did not disclose the former student’s administrative charges despite specific requests for disclosure.
[NOTE: Capella University lies again! It’s only too bad that, so far, those that lied to ERSIC have not yet been named publicly, it would be our guess that these would include Capella’s chief shyster: Greg Thom, and his sidekick, Priscilla McNulty.]
“Coverage may also be precluded under the policy by operation of specific exclusions, including but not limited to exclusions for: claims covered by prior policies of insurance; claims seeking emotional distress damages; claims for the costs associated with compliance of reasonable accommodation obligations arising under federal, state and local anti-disability discrimination laws; and claims for the costs associated with compliance with any order for, grant of or agreement to provide injunctive or non-pecuniary relief.”
[NOTE: Once again, ERSIC has their bases covered as it appears as if they are correct essentially all of the above! In addition to claims seeking emotional damages, costs associated “with compliance of reasonable accommodation obligations arising under federal, state and local anti-disability discrimination laws,” and other matters, the student’s lawsuit also includes charges of significant and severe violations of state (California) laws; including but not limited to:
This brings us to another one of the sleazy attempts that Capella University is ignoring to bilk money out of their insurance company – to date, ALMOST NO EFFORT has been exerted by Capella University to “defend’ themselves as the lawsuit that the student has filed against them remains in its infancy due to Capella’s vicious, frivolous, and completely unfounded counter-suit against the student. That’s right, Capella hasn’t been spending money on their “defense” they’re only spending on it their offensive [pun intended] actions against the student! Furthermore, according to the materials that Capella has submitted against ERSIC, the University has already spent more than $175,000! That’s right, Capella University has spent more than $175,000 ATTACKING the student even though that student’s lawsuit is still its initial stages! Of course, this should also demonstrate that, regardless of all of the other reasons listed above, the fact that Capella is spending money for their sleazy smear campaign against a student, has nothing to do with a defense! Apparently, Capella University is, once again, too stupid to act in an ethical manner and feels that their insurance company is just another revenue source intended to fund their pernicious activities.
The inability of Capella University, their officials, attorneys, administrators, etc. to tell the truth has long been reported. Not surprisingly, Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company (ERSIC), in their response to Capella's frivolous lawsuit against them, has stated:
"ERSIC affirmatively alleges that on or about June 15, 2005, Plaintiff submitted an application for insurance. ERSIC relied on the representations in that application when they agreed to bind coverage for Plaintiff. ERSIC further affirmatively alleges that Plaintiff [Capella University] made misrepresentations of material fact in its application for coverage and that these misrepresentations void coverage for La Marca’s claims against Plaintiff under the Policy."
A copy of ERSIC's official response to the United States District Court, District of Minnesota is available by clicking here.
A blog run by Australian librarian, Lynette Reville, notes:
"It’s thought-provoking to look at how many web standards are in place for users who have physical disabilities, and then to think about the lack of guidelines for users with other disabilities. Particularly with commercial learning management software, where end users don’t really have a lot of choice in the way the courses or the communication/assessment tools within them are accessed are constructed: you have to take what they give you, for better or worse."
Another blog, Avalúo y Tecnologías de Aprendizaje (Peru) states:
"Capella University ha sido demandada por uno de sus estudiantes por utilizar un sistema para manejar cursos en línea (WebCT) que no cumple supuestamente con los requisitos de accesibilidad para personas con problemas de aprendizaje. (Ley ADA) . Esta será la primera de muchas demandas a las que se enfrentarán no solo las universidades virtuales sino las compañías que manejan estos sistemas para manejar cursos en línea. "
A rough translation of this statement is:
"Capella University has demanded that one of its students use an online system (WebCT) that supposedly does not comply with the accessibility requirements of those with learning problems (Law ADA). This will be the first of many demands of virtual universities and the companies that make these systems for online courses."
Additional comments regarding the lawsuit against Capella will be posted as they are located. We salute those in the international educational community who are focusing on the real issues of the lawsuit - the lack of accessibility of WebCT to those with disabilities.
The lawsuit against Capella University has been gaining international attention since a story about it first appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education. While those criticizing it range from the uniformed to the out-and-out bigoted (for example, a white supremacist group came out in support of Capella's positions), there are also those who have exhibited very enlightened views. Interestingly, many of these are coming from outside of the United States. (Now what does that say about disability rights in the US?)
Two of the most enlightened posts that we have found, so far, include:
"The technology used in the Capella was WebCT.
I think the student has a point in here. I am not an expert of WebCT, but colleague of mine was lately using it and wrote pretty good review about the poor support for web standards in the WebCT. The use of JavaScript and frames seems to be a hack to “protect” the content inside WebCT, so saving it locally would be more difficult. Read the content and remember it!"
"Hardly surprising news, but very significant in my view. . .Surely it is only a matter of time before the same activism happens here in Australia. Many of us have argued til blue in the face that Learning Management Systems are unusable and inaccessible, and place unnecessary pressure on a student."
Articles about the discrimination lawsuit against Capella University are popping up all over the Internet. It's a good thing too because it appears as if Capella's propaganda machine is working overtime to hide their abusive practices. If anything, the international attention being received by the lawsuit is indicative of the importance that enlightened ones in the educational community place upon genuine accessibility.
At the moment (that is, at the time this was posted), there is one lawsuit against Capella University alleging:
• Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act – failure to accommodate (due to the incompetent design of WebCT)
• Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act – retaliation
• Unruh Civil Rights Act
• Violation of California Education Code, Section 94367
Some of the officials mentioned in this lawsuit include Capella’s:
• Provost (Karen Viechnicki)
• Chief Counsel (Greg Thom)
• Dean for the School of Technology (Kurt Linberg)
• Disabilities Service Coordinator (Lisa Bromenshenkel)
• TS5150 Instructor (Diane Stottlemyer)
Details of this lawsuit are currently posted on the web site of the plaintiff’s attorney at: