Mandatory Public School Health Education Classes Upheld

Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2003); 71(50) U.S. Law Week 1805-06 (July 1, 2003)

The Second Circuit ruled parents do not have a fundamental right to object to a requirement that their children attend health education classes at their public school.  A father objected to his child's required attendance at a Connecticut seventh grade health education class covering alcohol, drugs, tobacco, family life, and AIDS education.  The father asserted he was exercising his rights and those of his son in pursuing home schooling concerning "health, morals, ethical and personal behavior."  The child was excused from the family life and AIDS education portions of the class but not the rest of the curriculum.  The father filed suit claiming that this requirement violated his due process and free exercise of religion rights. The Second Circuit determined a parent does not have a fundamental right to tell a public school what his or her child will and will not be taught. As a result, the state need only establish a rational basis for its mandatory curriculum. Because the father did not dispute that mandatory attendance at health classes is reasonably related to the legitimate state interest in promoting child health and welfare, the court rejected the father's objection....

Found in DMHL Volume 23 Issue 1

Ruling that School System's Response to Student's Behavioral Difficulties Was Adequate Under IDEA Not Disturbed

CJN v. Minneapolis Public Schools, 323 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied sub nom., Nygren v. Minneapolis Public Schools, 124 S. Ct. 478 (2003)

The Supreme Court declined to review a ruling of the Eighth Circuit that a school district provided an eleven-year-old boy with a long history of mental illness the free appropriate public education required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  As a result, the Eighth Circuit rejected his mother's effort to obtain reimbursement for the tuition of a private school in which she placed him after the use of physical restraint and "time-outs" increased during the preceding year....

Found in DMHL Volume 23 Issue 1

Suspension of Medical Student Not Disturbed

Ku v. Tennessee, 322 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 325 (2003)

The Supreme Court declined to review a ruling of the Sixth Circuit that upheld the suspension of a medical student at a state university for what the student claimed was a suspected behavioral or psychological disorder.  The Sixth Circuit held that due process was satisfied when the student was fully informed of the faculty's dissatisfaction with the student's academic progress and when the decision to suspend had been careful and deliberate...

Found in DMHL Volume 23 Issue 1

Ruling that Dangerous Student May Be Suspended Pending Psychiatric Evaluation Not Disturbed

Roslyn Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Geffrey W., 293 A.2d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002), cert. denied, Waxman v. Roslyn Union Free Sch. Dist., 123 S. Ct. 2077 (2003); 71(44) U.S. Law Week 3719 (May 20, 2003)

The Supreme Court declined to review a decision by a New York appellate court that upheld the suspension of a public school student from school and his placement in homebound instruction pending the completion of a psychiatric evaluation of the student and review by the school district's committee on special education.  Under New York law, a school district may not unilaterally change a student's placement from regular instruction to homebound instruction while proceedings to determine whether the student is disabled are pending, even when a student poses a danger to himself or others. However, the New York appellate court determined a school district is entitled to seek a judicial ruling to extend a student's suspension upon a showing that maintaining the student in his current placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the student or to others.  The New York court found that such a showing had been made when it was undisputed that the student had without permission run out of classrooms and school buildings dangerously close to the Long Island Expressway, chased other students in the classroom, hit teachers and students with either a folder or crumpled paper, and chewed on sharp objects while leaning back in his chair....

Found in DMHL Volume 23 Issue 1

Lawsuits Against Law School for Student Shootings Settled

Lawsuits  over Appalachian School of Law Shootings Settled, 19(32) VA. LAW. WKLY. 1 (Jan. 10, 2005)

Four lawsuits brought against the Appalachian School of Law in the wake of the 2002 shooting spree by Peter Odighizuwa, a student who went on a rampage shortly after being asked to withdraw from school due to his poor academic performance, have been settled for $1 million...

Found in DMHL Volume 24 Issue 2

Virginia School Board's Offer of Educational Placement That Employs the TEACCH Method Found to Be Inadequate for Young Boy Diagnosed as Severely Autistic

County Sch. Bd. v. Z.P., 399 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2005)

Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), all states receiving federal funds for education are required to provide disabled schoolchildren with a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE). To meet this requirement, educational instruction must be specially designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction. However, states are not required to provide the best possible education.  The adequacy of a program offered by a school system to meet the FAPE requirement is oftentimes the subject of litigation...

Found in DMHL Volume 24 Issue 2

Teacher Claimed Constitutional Rights Violated When Arresting Police Officers Failed to Adequately Question Credibility of Special Needs Student Who Asserted Teacher Sexually Fondled Him

Forest v. Pawtucket Police Dep't, 377 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2004)

In Rhode Island, a high school special education teacher was arrested for the alleged sexual assault of a 15-year-old male student during class. On the day of the purported incident, the student had gone to the principal's office and claimed that the teacher had touched him in a sexual manner during class. That evening the student and his mother went to the local police department and filed a complaint against the teacher. Police officers interviewed and reinterviewed the student and his mother, as well as the school principal, who confirmed that the student had come to his office with his complaint...

Found in DMHL Volume 24 Issue 2

School Officials Can Be Held Liable for Failing to Protect Special Education Students from Bullying

Scruggs v. Meriden Bd. of Educ., No. 3:03CV2224(PCD), 2005 WL 2072312 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005)

Bullying in schools is increasingly recognized as a significant problem, with students enrolled in special education programs particularly vulnerable to this bullying. The United States District Court of Connecticut ruled that when school officials fail to take adequate steps to protect such students from bullying they may be sued for the harm resulting from this bullying...

Found in DMHL Volume 25 Issue 2

Sex Offenders Can Be Prohibited from Living Within 2,000 Feet of a School or Registered Child Care Facility; Ruling Not Disturbed

Doe v. Miller, 405 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 757 (2005)

Every state has adopted legislation that imposes registration and community notification on certain sex offenders, and there is now an Internet-based (www.nsopr.gov) national repository that collects and makes available to the public the names and the home and work addresses of these offenders. In addition, nineteen states have passed sexual offender civil commitment statutes, several states have abolished the statute of limitations on felony child sex abuse charges (e.g., Alaska, Maine, Rhode Island), at least two states have enacted legislation to admit evidence of prior acts of child abuse at a trial where there are current charges of child sexual abuse (California and Michigan), many states have increased sentences for sex offenders (e.g., Florida), a number of states have extended or enhanced the supervision of sex offenders upon release from prison (e.g., Florida authorizes lifetime supervision), and eighteen states have established buffer zones that prohibit registered sex offenders from living near places where children congregate. Susan Broderick, Innovative Legislative Strategies for Dealing with Sexual Offenders, 18(10) AMERICAN PROSECUTORS RESEARCH INSTITUTE UPDATE 1 (2006)...

Found in DMHL Volume 25 Issue 2

Burden Placed on Parents to Show School District's Planned Services Will Not Provide the "Appropriate" Education to Which Children with Disabilities Are Entitled

Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528 (2005)

A frequently litigated mental health question involves disputes over the nature of services owed children with disabilities by school systems under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  There are nearly seven million students in the country who receive special education services under the IDEA.  This law, which dates from 1970, requires school districts to provide a "free appropriate public education" and to work with parents to develop an individualized education program (IEP) for each student with a disability.  When parents and school officials cannot agree, an "impartial due process hearing," typically before an administrative law judge (ALJ), must be held...

Found in DMHL Volume 25 Issue 1

Reasonable accommodations under ADA and 14th Amendment

Dean v. University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, 804 F.3d 178 (2nd Cir. 2015)

Medical school failed to meet “reasonable accommodations” standards of ADA regarding exams for student with mental illness, but due process afforded to the same student in regard to dismissal from school for inadequate performance met constitutional standards

Background: Maxiam Dean began to experience increased symptoms of depression after failing Step 1 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination. He met with an internist who recommended pharmacological treatment and provided him with an “excuse slip” recommending a leave of absence due to his situational depression. Dean presented the slip to his medical school, and was informed that it did not provide sufficient information to support an extended leave. The defendants offered a 10 week leave in response to Dean’s request for 3 months and informed him that he would not be extended any additional accommodations, and that he must sit for his Step 1 by May 21, 2007. After failing to pass (or sit for) his third attempt at Step 1, Maxiam Dean was dismissed from the program. Dean brought suit under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed Dean’s complaint. Dean then appealed.

Holdings: The Fifth Circuit held that the district court had erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because the defendants failed to show that the requested accommodation was unreasonable and to provide a “plainly reasonable” alternative. The Fifth Circuit found the record “devoid of evidence” regarding defendants’ consideration of whether Dean’s proposed accommodation would impose undue financial or administrative hardship on the M.D. program. Thus the lack of evidence regarding “the basis for denying Dean’s requested modification to the exam schedule preclude[d] any conclusion on summary judgment as to the unreasonableness of that accommodation.” Defendants would be entitled to summary judgment only if “the undisputed record reveals that the plaintiff was accorded a plainly reasonable accommodation”, but a reasonable juror could have found that the “abbreviated study period encompassed within Dean’s leave” would not have been sufficient to prepare him to sit the exam.

The Court held that Dean’s procedural due process rights had not been violated, though, because he “received notice of potential termination…and a careful and deliberate decision.”

Found in Found in DMHL Volume 34, Issue 4

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Mental Health Services

L.J. v. Pittsburg Unified Sch. Dist., No. 14-16139, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16201 (9th Cir. Sep. 1, 2016)

Ninth Circuit rules that a student was eligible for special education services based on prior psychiatric hospitalizations and suicide attempts even though those incidents occurred outside the school environment, and directs that an individualized education plan be developed for the student despite findings that the student was performing well at school.

Background: L.J. was a primary school student exhibiting behavioral problems in grades two through five. L.J.’s mother repeatedly requested that the school district find L.J. eligible for special education under the IDEA, but the requests were denied. Through mediation, the school district agreed to transfer L.J. to another school, provide one-onone counseling through a paraeducator, and provide an assessment by a school psychologist. Despite the services provided, L.J. continued to act out violently and made two suicide attempts resulting in his confinement to a psychiatric hospital, which caused him to miss six school days. L.J.’s mother filed a request for a due process hearing claiming the school district failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) by denying L.J special education services and that the district failed to make requested records relating to L.J.’s counseling available. An administrative law judge ruled that L.J. did not have any qualifying disabilities and even if he had such qualifying disabilities, L.J. was not eligible for special education services because his academic performance was satisfactory when he was able to attend school. On appeal, the district court ruled that L.J. had qualifying disabilities, but did not need special education services because of his satisfactory academic performance. 

Holding: The Ninth Circuit reversed and held that the student was eligible for special education services. The court ruled that the student exhibited a need for services because his improved performance was due to his receipt of special education services, and that the student's psychiatric hospitalizations and suicide attempts were relevant to his eligibility for specialized instruction even though they occurred outside the school environment. The court also held that the school district committed procedural violations of the IDEA by failing to disclose school records and failing to conduct a health assessment.

Notable Point:

Qualifications for special education services: The court explained that a student with qualifying disabilities is nonetheless ineligible for special education services if support provided through general education services is sufficient to address the needs of the student. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the lower courts mischaracterized the specialized services L.J. was receiving as falling under general education services.

Found in DMHL Volume 35, Issue 3