Special education case review - Essay Example

Special education case review In K.M v. Tustin Unified School District (2013), the plaintiffs were high school students with hearing disabilities and received services associated with special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This eligibility implied that they were eligible for free appropriate public education (FAPE). The plaintiffs alleged that they were entitled to a word for word transcription service by their school districts under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiffs had requested their schools to provide communication access real-time translation to enable them understand their teachers and fellow students without undue strain. Their requests were denied by school districts but they were offered alternative accommodations. The plaintiffs had unsuccessfully challenged the decision to deny the service in state administrative proceedings. Their claims were that the denial violated IDEA and title II of the ADA. The issues in this case was whether compliance with obligations to deaf or children with hearing disabilities under the IDEA also establishes compliance with obligations for effective communications under title II of the ADA. The IDEA provides that schools must provide children with disabilities free appropriate public education designed to the individual needs of the child. Title II of the ADA on the other hand provides that no individual with disabilities shall be excluded from participation or from the benefits of public entities due to their disabilities. Public schools must comply with both the IDEA and the ADA. The court reversed the district courts grant for a summary judgment. It held that compliance with obligations to children with hearing disabilities under IDEA does not signify compliance with obligations for effective communications under the ADA. In arriving at this conclusion, the court noted that there are differences between the provisions of the IDEA and those of Title II of the ADA. Because of this difference, failure of a claim under the IDEA does not necessarily exclude a claim under Title II of the ADA. In A.C v. Shelby County Board of Education (2013), A.C was a minor with type I diabetes. She attended Bon Lin Elementary school, which is governed by the Shelby County Board of Education SCBE. Her parents had requested certain disability accommodations for her. These accommodations included the retention of a full time nurse, making the child’s classroom a peanut free zone due to her allergy to peanuts and taking of her blood tests in her classroom as opposed to the school clinic. There had been tensions between the school and the child’s parents regarding these requests. The situation got out of hand when the school principal made reports to the department of child services alleging that the parents were medically abusing the child. Following the report, the parents filed a suit claiming that the violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. Section 504 and the ADA prohibits retaliations against individuals due to opposing practices made while seeking to enforce their rights under these Acts. In the current case, the plaintiffs claimed that the act of making reports to the DCS were retaliatory as they were directed against repeated requests for accommodation. The District court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the report was retaliatory and had failed to show the reasons given for the report by the SCBE were pretext for retaliation. The court, therefore, granted a summary judgment in favor of SCBE. The plaintiffs appealed. The issue on the appeal was that the lower court had forced the plaintiffs to rebut the nondiscriminatory rationale by SCBE, that the prima facie burden of proof was meet and that the court failed to draw all the inferences in the plaintiffs favor. The appeal court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. In its decision it noted that the decision relied upon in the lower court was a First amendment retaliation case and not a retaliation case under the ADA or section 504. Additionally, the proximity of the reports and the plaintiff’s requests for accommodation shows a connection between the alleged retaliatory activity and protected activities by the plaintiffs. In F. H v. Memphis City Schools (2014), F.H attended Memphis City Schools. He had cerebral palsy, which required him to use a wheelchair and assistance while in the bathroom. The child’s parents had filed a due process hearing under the IDEA. The matter had been resolved with an agreement. The settlement had discharged the school board from claims under IDEA that could have been alleged during the hearing. The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the school board alleging physical, verbal and sexual abuse. They claimed violated of section 1983 of the United States Constitution, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the ADA. Additionally, there were claims of retaliation under Section 504 and the ADA, along with breach of the settlement. The district court dismissed the claims. The issues on appeal were whether all claims that occurred before the settlement were bared and whether other claims required exhaustion under the IDEA. The IDEA provides that the plaintiff shall exhaust administrative remedies before bringing an action to enforce rights under the act. Amendments to the IDEA provide that the patties shall execute where a resolution is reached to resolve a conflict, a legally binding agreement. The court found that claims under Section 1983 were not released by the agreement because they do not arise out of the IDEA and administrative exhaustion was useless. Additionally, the court noted that the language of the settlement together with amendments to the IDEA made the settlement enforceable; therefore, administrative exhaustion did not apply to breach of contract claims. In reaching its decision, the court pointed out that the allegations of verbal and physical abuse were not educational or disciplinary thus do not have a remedy under the IDEA. It also noted that the plaintiffs did not exhaust their claims under Section 1983 through the administrative process under the IDEA simply because they requested compensatory damages. Moreover, the court stated that the breach of contract claim does not require administrative exhaustion because the terms of the settlement provided that the agreement was reached at a resolution and would be enforceable in a court of law. Reference list A.C v. Shelby County Board of Education, 711 F. 3d 687 (6th Cir. 2013) F. H v. Memphis City Schools, 764 F. 3d 638 (6th Cir. 2014), K.M v. Tustin Unified School District, 725, F. 3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2013) Read More