TF vs Fox Chapel School District

[twinturbo]

@EDcivilrights (Dept of Ed Civil Rights)
@usedgov (US Dept of Ed)
@CivilRights (US DOJ Civil Rights)
@ArneDuncan
@wrightslaw
@NDRNadvocates (Disability Rights NDRN)
@FoodAllergy (FARE)
@AllergicLiving
@TheAllergistMom
@faactnews

...bloggers, anyone who can spread the word, trend the tags, blog, rally the support, read what's happening, know what's at stake.

#WeAreTF #inclusion #educationcivilright

For anyone reading this on here who would not know I've been tracking this case and Ridley for a while. The Circuit court decision to deny TF's right to FAPE and harassment from the SD in retaliation was enormously harmful. This is happening--now. OCR is there in the Dept of Ed but this is different, federal court. Our inclusion in the public education system is at stake.

TF vs Fox Chapel Appeal

FARE amicus brief

Take the time to email FARE to thank them for taking such an important advocate's stance legally and publicly on our behalf. Take the time to point this out to Ed Civil Rights, Arne Duncan, the US Dept of Ed. Let them know these kids need the schools to engage them meaningfully to be fully included in their education SAFELY. This is being fought hard and this is our fight. Throw any and all support you can behind this. The outcome will matter. The argument of a safe and inclusive education coming to the attention of Dept of Ed, Dept of Justice Civil Rights as fully as possible will matter.

[twinturbo]

p. 56, 57 Appeal brief

deliberate indifference wrt knowing of but failing to address disabled student's individual needs resulting in violation of Section 504.

Under the deliberate indifference standard, intentional discrimination can be inferred from a defendant school district's "(1) knowledge that a federally protected right is substantially likely to be violated...and (2) a failure to act despite that knowledge."

Deliberate indifference does not mean that a school district acted with "personal ill will or animosity toward the disabled person." "It does, however, require a 'deliberate choice, rather than negligence or bureaucratic inaction.'

For instance, a school district's deliberate choice to decline to modify its conduct after learning what constitutes appropriate accommodations constitutes a deliberate choice...violating Section 504 with deliberate indifference where it "simply ignores the needs of [disabled] students.

[twinturbo]

starting p. 4 FARE amicus brief

Approximately 16-18% of school-age children with food allergies have had an allergic reaction while in school.27 Schools are a particularly hazardous setting for students who with food allergies. Incidental and unintended contact often occurs with food allergens in several ways, such as other students sharing or spilling food from their snacks or lunches; snacks being handed out in class or at school events; food allergens being used in classroom crafts or experiments; and children with unwashed hands containing trace allergens.

Schools are Required to Develop Individualized § 504 Plans to ensure a FAPE for Students with Disabilities
Prior to the passage of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, Congress found that discrimination on the basis of disability was "most often the product, not of invidious animus, but rather of thoughtlessness and indifference—of benign neglect" or "apathetic attitudes." Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 295 (1985). For some students with the hidden disability of a severe food allergy, schools have shown such apathy and thoughtlessness.

It also must ensure that a student with a disability can participate to the "maximum extent possible" within an educational setting. 34 C.F.R. § 104.34(b); Ridley Sch. Dist., 680 F.3d at 280. An educational setting includes both academics and nonacademic "extracurricular services and activities," such as meals and recess. 34 C.F.R. § 104.34(b).

This is true regardless of whether a school has other plans that address the student's medical needs.29 IHP and § 504 Plans at 272 (citing U.S. Department of Education's Office on Civil Rights findings of noncompliance for schools providing only Individualized Health Plans for students with the disability of diabetes because evaluation under § 504 was also required).Such a requirement ensures that schools will consider the individual medical needs of students with a disability and any further modifications that may be necessary to provide a FAPE under § 504.

For example, schools may create an Individualized Health Plan (IHP) that "fulfills administrative and clinical purposes, including management of healthcare conditions to promote learning; facilitating communication, coordination, and continuity of care among service providers; and evaluation/revision of care provided." IHP and § 504 Plans at 272.

While schools are allowed some latitude in providing a FAPE, an individualized § 504 Plan that sufficiently addresses the individual needs of a student with the hidden disability of severe food allergy should include two key components. First, it should include all individualized accommodations designed to ensure students with the hidden disability of a severe food allergy have meaningful participation in and access to educational benefits within academic and nonacademic settings. Second, it should include an individualized Emergency Care Plan that details how to recognize and treat an allergic reaction and prevent anaphylaxis. This latter requirement is essential to properly address a food allergy, which affects students with the disability in unique and unpredictable ways.

As detailed further in Appendix A, a sufficient individualized 504 Plan also would take into account each of the following factors: (1) a student's medical history; (2) the type of allergy and level of sensitivity to the allergen; (3) the number of allergies, if applicable; (4) the presence of atopic conditions, such as eczema or asthma; (5) the mental health, age and maturity level of the student; (6) any developmental disorders or learning disabilities, if applicable; (7) past bullying or harassment; (8) the presence or absence of a school nurse; and (9) transportation needs. Greater detail would be included in the final plan regarding who, what, where, when, and how this policy would unfold. Section 504 Plans that lack these details could not be properly executed or enforced during times of emergency and thus leave students with the hidden disability of a severe food allergy at significant risk of anaphylaxis and death. Such considerations ensure schools are providing a FAPE to students with the hidden disability of a severe food allergy.

[SilverLining]

For anyone reading this on here who would not know I've been tracking this case and Ridley for a while. The Circuit court decision to deny TF's right to FAPE and harassment from the SD in retaliation was enormously harmful. This is happening--now. OCR is there in the Dept of Ed but this is different, federal court. Our inclusion in the public education system is at stake.

TF vs Fox Chapel Appeal

FARE amicus brief

The first link does not work for me.  Pops up as a disabled link.

[Macabre]

It is a Dropbox link. It may only work with US IP addresses?

[SilverLining]

Ok, as long as it's working for others.

[twinturbo]

Silver's right it's now disabled for me as well. I have a saved copy but am not going to publicly post without kindergartenmom's permission. It's still up as a link on the FB page. My guess is a Dropbox technical issue.

The first post in this thread has a link directly to the I support TF Facebook page.


Point support here -> I support TF from Fax Chapel School District

[Macabre]

A friend who does legal research said this:

Let me check the rule, but the school would not need to file its brief for 30 days after Plaintiff/Appellant filed their brief.  That is why we don't have it yet. Look for it around June 1.

Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure:  After School files its brief, then Plaintiff has 30 days to file reply brief before oral argument (if scheduled) takes place.

[Macabre]

Ah yeah--just did that--once I made all the connections.

[twinturbo]

Linking previous discussion on this case. Timeline is after hearing decision, but before first round in Circuit court.

Pennsylvania Disability Harassment Lawsuit

[ajasfolks2]

Should I save the .pdf from the unknown Dropbox and put a copy in the Dropbox we have for FAS (where the Virginia Beach OCR Letter of Res is)?

If yes, I'll work on over weekend when it is raining and I will have a bit of time?

[twinturbo]

My understanding is yes, that would be of service.

[ajasfolks2]

Supposedly there was Dropbox problem for all links prior to May 5 and there is new link?

((Noting that I may need to check our other links to Dropbox and update in threads here . . . in my copius free time))

[Macabre]

Oh, I thought it was taken down on purpose. Yea, if it can go back up again. 

[LinksEtc]

http://ohmahdeehness.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/a-brief-in-semi-brief-understanding-the-amicus-brief-of-fare-and-copaa-in-t-f-vs-fox-chapel-area-school-district/


I spoke with her on twitter (briefly  ) and she seemed so nice.