Summary of Legal Cases

1
Summary of Legal Cases
By Brian OConnor and Brian Wagner

• Based upon presentations of
• Jim Walsh
• Julie Weatherly
• Art Cernosia

2
ADA/Section 504Cordeiro v. Driscoll

• Have to meet the schools policy or it is not
  discrimination
• Important for dormitories
• Have to meet criteria to be accepted

3
ADA/Section 504Benedict V. Central Catholic High
School

• Cannot intentionally discriminate. Following
  policy is not discrimination.
• Note Responsibility for FAPE still exists.

4
BehaviorSan Rafael Elementary School District
vs. California Special Education Hearing Officer

• Court found that the child doesnt have to show
  progress to the home or community.
• NOTE Im not sure how this is correct with
  transition responsibilities, but Im not a judge.

5
Court found that the child doesnt have to show
progress in the home or community.NOTE Im not
sure how this is correct with transition
responsibilities, but Im not a judge.

• San Rafael Elementary School District vs.
  California Special Education Hearing Officer
• L.G. v. School Board of Palm Beach County

6
BEHAVIORLauren P. v. Wissahickon School District

• Compensatory education awarded to student because
  documentation supported need for a behavior
  intervention plan and one was not included in the
  IEP.
• NOTE BIP has positive interventions

7
BEHAVIORS.J. v. Issaquah School District No. 411

• A students right to education cannot be
  contingent upon taking medication.
• Included in IDEIA 2004.

8
CHILD FINDStrock v. ISD No. 281
ADHD diagnosis does not mean that a child has a
disability under IDEA.
9
DUE PROCESS PROCEDURESH.H. v. Indiana Board of
Special Education Appeals
Neither the parent or the school have the right
or authority to veto who can be on the
Manifestation Team. Both can invite, but neither
can veto.
10
ELIGIBILITYAshli and Gordon C. v. State of
Hawaii DOE
If a student is able to learn and perform in the
regular classroom taking into account his
particular learning style without specially
designed instruction, the fact that this health
impairment may have a minimal adverse effect does
not render him eligible for special education
services. The court ruled that differentiated
instruction is not specially designed
instruction.
11
ELIGIBILITY
A student who is socially maladjusted (conduct
disorder, drug abuse, aggression, suicide
attempt, etc.) does not mean that the student has
an emotional disturbance.

• Mr. and Mrs. N.C. v. Bedford Central School
  District
• St. Joseph-Ogden Community High School District
  No. 305 v. Janet W.

12
ELIGIBILITY
The court and hearing officer will look at the
States criteria for an IDEA disability in making
a decision about a students eligibility.

• Mr. I and Mrs. I v. Maine School Administrative
  District No. 55
• OSEP Letter to Anonymous

13
ELIGIBILITYLetter to Clark (OSEP 2007)
Just because a student gets passing grades in
classes does not mean the student does not need
speech.
14
ELIGIBILITYAlvin ISD v. A.D.
Teachers testimony was stronger than doctors
because doctors decision was based upon parent
interview and teacher had classroom observation
and data. Determined parent misrepresented to
doctor.
15
EVALUATIONSLetter to Christiansen
Parental consent is required and a parents
option to request an Independent Educational
Evaluation exists, if a functional behavioral
assessment is a needed evaluation.
16
FAPEEllenberg v. New Mexico Military Institute
An IEP is the first step in the procedural
safeguards.
17
FAPEDraper v. Atlanta Independent School
A school system is not expected to be successful
with every child, but it is responsible for
working with each child and making modifications
if the IEP services are not appropriate.
18
FAPEJoshua A. v. Rocklin Unified School District
IDEA requires schools to base IEP services on
peer reviewed research. Clarifies that the
school does not have to provide the service with
the most research.
19
Harassment

• Three things to do
• Look into it
• Make a decision
• Contact parents

20
IEPA.K. v. Alexandria City School Board

• What is written on an IEP is what matters. Not
  what is said in the meeting.

21
IEPVan Duyn v. Backer School District 5J

• An IEP is not a contract. It is an agreement to
  provide services. This agreement is violated when
  there is a material failure. more than a minor
  discrepancy between the services provided and
  those required by the IEP.

22
IEP Team MeetingsMr. and Mrs. M. v. Ridgefield
Board of Education

• A parents request to reschedule a meeting was
  not recognized. Court found in parents favor
  because school needs to work with parents to find
  a mutually agreed upon time and place. Parents
  request to make a change was not unreasonable.
  Multiple requests may be looked at differently.

23
IEP Team MeetingsHjortness v. Neenah Joint
School District

• Parents refused to productively participate in
  meetings, so the school was not found in
  violation of FAPE when it drafted the remainder
  of the IEP without the parents because the
  parents left the meeting and refused to
  participate.

24
PLACEMENTMarc V. North East ISD

• Doctors prescription or recommended placement is
  not an automatic. IEP team decides placement.