Connecticut Education Law Blog : Connecticut Education Lawyer & Attorney : Berchem, Moses & Devlin Law Firm : CT Public Schools

In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (NY, VT, CT) formally joined its sister circuit courts in adopting a standard for determining when a school district has fulfilled its responsibility to educate a student with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE).  In P. v. Newington Board of Education (10/9/08), the court adopted a "flexible, fact-specific analysis, considering whether, with the aid of appropriate supplemental aids and services, education in the regular classroom may be achieved, and, if not, whether the school has included the student in regular classes, programs, and activities to the maximum extent appropriate."  Applying that analysis to the case before it, the court found that the school district had fulfilled that responsibility for P., a student with Down Syndrome, hearing impairment, and other significant health problems.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Crosby v. Woodbridge Board of Education, the Superior Court confirmed that a public employer is immune from liability for intentional tort allegedly committed by an employee pursuant to General Statutes § 52-557n(a)(2) and therefore is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

In this case, a parent brought a claim on behalf of a minor student against a board of education that contended that the school principal knowingly tolerated an atmosphere of chaos, disruptiveness and violence against the student, as a result of which he was exposed on a daily basis to so much physical and verbal violence in the classroom and play areas that school became a place of fear and learning could not take place in any meaningful manner. In addition, the plaintiff contended that the principal’s acts and omissions were extreme and outrageous and were carried out with knowledge that the student would suffer, and in fact did suffer, emotional distress as a result. The school principal was not named as a defendant.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Since Congress has explicitly rejected the Supreme Court's decisions in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. and Toyota Motor Manufacturer v. Williams, some school districts may need to remove references to these cases from training materials and guidance for staff on defining "substantial limitation" and "major life activities".

In addition, a new list of major life activities explicitly contained in the statute now includes eating, sleeping, standing, lifting, bending, reading, concentrating, thinking and communicating.  Although many districts have stretched the definition of "learning" to include impairments to "focus" and "concentration" associated with various health impairments including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), the inclusion of "concentration" as a major life activity makes this stretch unnecessary and expands the likelihood that students with ADHD and other focus-impairing conditions will qualify as disabled under Section 504.  Districts may wish to provide training for staff about ways in which the ability of a student to concentrate may be compared to the average student in the general population, such as through use of checklists and behavior rating scales.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Through H.R. 3195, our 110th Congress has vastly expanded the reach of the Americans with Disabilities Act, by effectively bringing within its reach a large number of individuals previously excluded under the current  jurisprudence interpreting the Act. The Act still maintains its primary definition as to who is included thereunder (those with “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities” or those “regarded as disabled”), but calls for an expansion of what it means to “substantially limit,” what constitutes a “major life activity,” and  what it means to “be regarded as disabled.” 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Commissioner of Education Mark McQuillan issued new guidance dated October 1, 2008 to all school districts to help implement the new requirements of Connecticut General Statutes Section 10-233c requiring all suspensions to be in-school rather than out-of-school (unless certain requirements are met) as of July 1, 2009.  This guidance was required by the legislation passed last year, and is available on the State Department of Education website.  In his memorandum to school districts, Commissioner McQuillan invites districts to continue to review the guidance document and submit feedback to help create the most useful guidelines possible.  The Department also promises to hold technical assistance seminars and workshops between now and March 2009 to help districts assess their readiness to implement the new law for the 2009-2010 school year.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks