Educators and the Law


Presented By: Jamie Carpenter Greg Hutchings Bronwyn MacFarlane Holly Richard Power Point Presentation On Gender in Education Travis Burns Antoine Hickman Patricia Kern Shelly Nowacek Power Point Presentation On Special Education Webmaster: Jamie Carpenter		Case Law Supreme Court Cases Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) • All students have the right to procedural due process. • Students have the right to explain their conduct to an administrator (short-term suspension). • Students must be given a hearing before the school board for long-term suspensions and expulsion. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) • Students with disabilities have a right to remain in educational placement pending a due process hearing. • If a serious offense committed by a student with a disability is a manifestation of the disability, IDEA prohibits exclusion of student. • Excluding a student longer than 10 days is considered a change in placement. Circuit Court Cases S-1 v. Turlington, 635 F.2d 342 (5th Cir. 1981). • Required that "a trained and knowledgeable group of persons" meet to determine if a student's misconduct "bears a relationship to his or her handicapping condition." • Required a manifestation determination. • Declared that expulsion is a change in placement for a child with a disability Commonwealth of Virginia v. Riley 23 F. 3d 80 (4th Cir. 1994) • Virginia challenged the U.S. Department of Education's policy that school districts must provide educational services to students who have been suspended for more than 10 days for reasons unrelated to their disabilities. • Schools must provide a free appropriate education to with a disability even if the infraction is unrelated to disability. • At no time shall a student's services be terminated. AW v. Fairfax County School Board, No. 03-1181 (4th Cir. 2004) School district transferred a student with a disability to another school in the division for disciplinary reasons. Court ruled that school districts may transfer students with disabilities for reasons related to discipline. A transfer does not violate the “stay put” provision of IDEA as long as the student continues to receive related services. Alex R. v. Forrestville Valley Community Unit School District No. 221, 375 F.3d. 603(7 th Cir. 2004) Seventh Circuit Court addressed a challenge to an updated IEP and a BIP for a disruptive third grade student. It was determined that the student's BIP could not be judged substantively insufficient because no criteria for a BIP had been specified in the statute or regulations. Court concluded that the student's IEP had been reasonably calculated to produce educational benefit. District Court Cases Lamont v. Quisenberry, 606 F. Supp. 809, 818 n.7 (S.D. Oh. 1985). long-term exclusion from a classroom to a severely restricted environment like a one-hour-per-week, home-based tutoring program is illegal. Parent v. Osceola County Sch. Bd., 59 F.Supp.2d 1243 (M.D. Fla. 1999). Alternative school placements for special education students with discipline issues do not have to be exactly the same as the student's regular school placement. State Cases Commonwealth v. Nathaniel N ., -- Massachusetts Appeals Court. (99-P-1085) (2002). School districts may report the criminal acts of special education students to law enforcement. Additional Case Law Related to Students with Disabilities Supreme Court Cases Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). • Separate but equal is unconstitutional. • Equal protection under the law. Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). Supreme Court defined a free appropriate public education as access not excess. Students with disabilities must at a minimum receive an opportunity to advance in the general education curriculum. School districts are not required to exceed minimum expectations of a free appropriate public education. Irving Independent School District v. Tatro 468 US 883 (1984). Services that benefit a student's health are considered related services. School districts may be required to pay for health services that limit access to the general education curriculum. Burlington Sch. Committee v. Mass. Bd. of Ed., 471 U. S. 359 (1985) . If a school district fails to provide a free and appropriate education to a student with a disability and the parent places the student in a private school, the school district may be required to pay for the child's education at the private school. Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter, 510 U.S. 7, (1993) . If a school district fails to provide a free and appropriate education to a student with a disability and the parent places the student in a private school, the school district may be required to reimburse the parents for the cost of sending the child to a private school. Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District , 509 U.S. 1 (1993) Required school district to provide an interpreter for a death child attending a parochial school. Public funds may used to provide services to students with disabilities attending private religious schools. Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F., 119 U. S. 992 (1999) School districts may be required to pay costs of nursing care for students with disabilities. Services that benefit a student's health are considered related services. School districts may be required to pay for health services that limit access to the general education curriculum. Tennessee v. Lane, 124 S. Ct. 1978 (2004) The explicit abrogation in ADA of a state's rights o be immune from suits for monetary damages has been challenged in court under Title I and Title II of ADA. In this case, the court upheld the legitimacy of the abrogation clause under Title II as it pertained to access to state courts. The court found that Congress has ample evidence that states had denied individuals with disabilities meaningful access to judicial services and court proceedings, which violated the due process principle that states must “afford to all individuals to be heard in its courts” (Huefner, 2006). Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U. S. (2005) The burden of proof in a due process hearing that challenges an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is placed upon the party seeking the relief. Circuit Court Cases Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools, 853 F.2d 256 (4 th Cir. 1988) The court held that FAPE was denied because the public school had proposed a transfer to a private school placement prior to development of a new IEP. Rothschild v. Grottenhaler, 907 F.2d 286 (2d Cir. 1990) Court held that failure to provide an interpreter for deaf parents at parent-teacher conferences concerning academic or disciplinary aspects of the child's education violated Section 504. Greer vs. Rome City School District , 950 F.2d 688 1992 (11th Cir. 1992) School districts must consider accommodations or services in the regular education environment for students with disabilities before considering placement in a self-contained classroom. Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School , 995 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993). School districts must demonstrate reasonable efforts to accommodate handicapped children in the regular education setting. School districts should compare and contrast the benefits of the regular education setting with the special education setting. Schools districts should consider the handicapped child's effect on other children in the regular education classroom. Sacramento City School District v. Rachel Holland, 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994). School districts must consider the following when determining self-contained or regular education placement for students with disabilities: (1) the educational benefits of placing a handicapped child in a full-time regular education classroom; (2) the non-academic benefits of the placement; (3) the impact the handicapped child would have on students in the regular education classroom; (4) the costs associated with the placement in the regular education classroom. M.P. v. Independent School District No. 721 (8 th Cir. 2006) Teacher disclosed a student's disability to the student body. The school district failed to protect the child from harassment and discrimination that resulted after the disclosure. School districts may be liable for failing to take appropriate steps to protect students with disabilities from harassment and discrimination. District Court Cases Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia , 348 Supp. 866, (CD. DC 1972) Students with disabilities to have access to a free public education Students with disabilities are entitled to due process protection. School districts must provide special education services regardless of financial capability. PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , 343 F. Supp. 279, (E.D. PA, 1972). Schools districts may not exclude mentally retarded students. All students must be provided with a free public education. Haugstad v. Stanwood-Camano School District (W.N. 2000) • Schools must take reasonable steps to protect students with disabilities from harassment. School Districts may be required to pay punitive damages to students for failing to protect them from emotional distress. Cruz V. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association, 157 F. Supp. 2d 485 (E.D. Penn, 2001) Court in Pennsylvania enjoined enforcement of the age 19 rule against a student with a disability who was overage. The court found that no undue burden or fundamental alteration in the football and track program would result from allowing the student to play. The Association subsequently developed a waiver program. Goleta Union Elementary Sch. Dist v. Andrew Ordway , CV99-07745 (C.D. Cal., 2002) School officials may be found personally liable for violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) State Cases A.A. v. Cooperman, 526 A. 2d 1103 (NJ Ct. App. Div. 1987) A student with an orthopedic impairment who was voluntarily enrolled in a private school without special education was determined ineligible for transportation because it would not be needed to assist the student to benefit from special education if the student was not a special education student.