Ruling: Md. need not protect pupils from allergens in school lunch

[CMdeux]

Ahhhhhhh....


yes, that makes sense.  You'd HAVE to argue protected class in this instance, I think. 

[eragon]

one of the most disgusting things i have ever read. that a educational authority should find themselves not responsible for the care of a child is unthinkable.

why would ANYONE trust this school system?

shameful. totally shameful.

[notnutty]

The problem with this type of ruling is that it is going to be taken out of context.  The court made a very specific ruling regarding the NSLA and it was not intended to address the duty to protect the child at the local/state level.

Nonetheless, it will be cited by every school district's lunch program as a way to wiggle out of accountability at the LOCAL level. 

I am not surprised at all.  Just another reason to have a rock solid 504 that includes language that specifies that the student should never be given anything to consume that contains the student's allergen.

[Arkadia]

The ruling didn't deal with the accountability of the local school district, which settled the case with the family.  It looks like the family also sought to sue the state board of education/schools superintendent.  According to the article the seven judge panel felt that the USDA regulation requires that state departments of education create training and train local school districts in food allergies but that the statute doesn't require them to assume liability for keeping the child safe (seems that likely rests with the local school district).  It doesn't seem too stunning.  If the court had held that state departments of ed could be held liable, it could stand to reason that the federal DOE could also be held liable; that's just not realistic as those working at those levels are not involved in the care of the child.

Isn't there an obligation for the DOE to monitor compliance with their regulations?  IDPH (Illinois Department of Public Health) routinely inspects facilities and documentation (training, licensure, and proficiency, for example), In person, and without notice, and with regularity.

then again, administration at the federal level has set some precedents to the negative, in that regard. Repealing of requirements to that effect in other areas, but nonetheless, a bad example.

[maeve]

Ark,
Under NSLA, there is a requirement to monitor compliance.  According to the opinion, the act only requires audits every 5 years.  That's the way the law is written. 

Really, reading this the responsibility lies at the local district.  I think that makes sense.  The local district will be aware of who each of these children are (of course, that's if the children's parents inform the school--but that's another issue entirely).

[Arkadia]

Ark,
Under NSLA, there is a requirement to monitor compliance.  According to the opinion, the act only requires audits every 5 years.   That's the way the law is written. 

Really, reading this the responsibility lies at the local district.  I think that makes sense.  The local district will be aware of who each of these children are (of course, that's if the children's parents inform the school--but that's another issue entirely).

audits by whom and with what implication(s)? Or aren't there any?

[Arkadia]

Please note this example of how compliance is monitored and enforced by the IDPH in this particular instance:

http://www.idph.state.il.us/healthca/nhregulate.htm

Now JCAHO, those are the real big bastards. If they hold a hoop, we jump through it. There is long lasting residual in effect, not entirely tapering till the next accredidation period.

http://www.jointcommission.org/

I can't help but think how wonderful it would be if DOE held inspections on major holidays....