Chapter 11. ADA: Miscellaneous 87 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The first issue that must be determined when deciding whether a disability-based distinction is being made is whether a distinction singles out a covered disability under the ADA. This requires a determination of whether a physical or mental condition is recognized as a covered disability under the ADA. A discussion of this issue is found in Chapter 3 of this Nutshell.
- As a preliminary matter, there is a threshold issue of when an insurer falls within the coverage of Title III. As noted in Chapter 7 of this Nutshell, Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the “basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 12182(a) Title III contains a list of twelve categories of private entities that are public accommodations governed by the ADA. Several examples of covered entities are listed in each category.
- Another issue with respect to disability-based distinctions involves benefit caps. The EEOC states that yearly or lifetime benefit caps applied to all health or disability plan participants are permissible. It reasons that such caps are not used almost exclusively with respect to treatment for a particular disability and thus are not disability-based. For example, the EEOC opines that a policy that establishes a maximum benefit of $20,000 per year for medical care would not violate the ADA. An annual or lifetime cap tied to a specific disabling condition, such as AIDS, however, is likely to violate the ADA, according to the EEOC. In , 205 F.3d 179 (5th Cir. 2000), however, the court held that an insurer did not violate the ADA by offering an insurance policy that limited the amount of coverage for AIDS to $10,000 over the first two years of policy; the insurer offered the policy to the insured, who was later diagnosed with AIDS, on the same terms as it offered policy to other...
- (2) Requires different lengths of employment for participation by individuals with disabilities and individuals without disabilities in the employer’s service retirement or disability retirement plans. For example, it is discriminatory if an employer requires employees with disabilities to complete 12 years of service before being allowed to enroll in its service retirement plan but only requires other employees to complete 10 years of service.
- (1) Excludes employees from participation in a service retirement or disability retirement plan because of their disabilities. For example, an employer violates the ADA if it requires employees covered by the ADA who qualify for both service and disability retirement plans to take the disability retirement benefit.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. Introduction and Overview 15 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This Nutshell provides a general overview of the major federal laws enacted by Congress to aid in eliminating the discrimination confronted by Americans with disabilities.
- As a result of the concentrated lobbying activities of persons with disabilities and their advocates, Congress passed several laws geared to protect people with disabilities in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Among the most prominent were Sections 501, 503, and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 791, 793, 794; the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1400 (originally entitled the Education of all Handicapped Children Act); and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 4151–4157. Sections 501, 503 and 504 prohibit federal agencies, federal contractors and recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities on the basis of disability; the ABA requires that federally owned, leased or financed buildings be accessible to people with disabilities; and the IDEA requires states to provide all children with disabilities who require special education and related... ...a...
- Americans with disabilities also faced discrimination in the field of education. Although the Supreme Court ruled in segregated schools are prohibited by the United States Constitution, automatic segregation of children with disabilities was not barred by federal law until the enactment of the IDEA in 1975. Federal intervention was deemed necessary because over half of the more than eight million children with disabilities in this country were not receiving “appropriate educational services which would enable them to have full equality of opportunity,” 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400(c)(2)(B), and one million of those children were excluded entirely from the public school system. ., § 1400(c)(2)(C). The IDEA was amended in 1991 to address several substantive concerns arising under the Act, as well as to change the name from the Education for All Handicapped Children Act to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The IDEA was again amended in 1997 and 2004 to address further concerns...
- Despite these laws, as of early 1990 no federal statute prohibited the majority of employers, program administrators, owners and managers of places of public accommodation and others from discriminating against people with disabilities. In the late 1980s, studies showed that only two-thirds of working age Americans with disabilities who were able to be employed had jobs, and many of those who did have jobs were working in positions below their capabilities. This was so because many employers refused to hire people with disabilities, and because those people with disabilities who were employed were often left in entry-level positions and not promoted in accord with their abilities. In 1990, over eight million Americans with disabilities who wanted to work were denied jobs and thus were forced to depend on government subsidies—to the disadvantage of
- Discrimination based on disability differs in some respects from discrimination based on other factors such as race or sex. Factors like race, and in most cases sex, generally do not create any rational differences between individuals regarding the ability to do a job or qualification to perform in a program. Thus, there is rarely, if ever, a reason to treat persons of different races or sexes differently. Conversely, an individual’s disability —to differing degrees—constitute a permissible reason for treating that individual in a different manner. Because in many cases there are meaningful differences between disabled and nondisabled individuals, it cannot automatically be assumed that disparate treatment of persons with disabilities is discriminatory. Moreover, because of the differences between disabled and nondisabled individuals, the underlying premise of discrimination based on disability differs in some respects from that based on other factors such as race. Racial... ...an...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 102 results (showing 5 best matches)
- However, when an individual with a disability brings a Section 504 claim in conjunction with a claim under another federal law that require administrative remedies to be exhausted before suit is filed, the individual must exhaust the administrative steps prescribed by the second law. Similarly, if an individual with a disability files an action claiming employment discrimination under both Sections 504 and 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, the administrative procedures prescribed under Section 501 must be pursued before suit is filed. For example, if an individual files an action claiming educational discrimination under both Section 504 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (discussed later in this Nutshell), the administrative procedures prescribed under the IDEA must be followed prior to filing the IDEA action in state or federal court. Some courts have even held that one cannot bring the Section 504 claim until one exhausts the IDEA claim because the rights...
- In order for a recipient of federal financial assistance to be liable under Section 504, of course, the recipient must know of the plaintiff’s disability or be aware of facts sufficient to put the recipient on notice of the plaintiff’s disability. Absent such knowledge or awareness, a recipient cannot have discriminated against a person solely on the basis of his or her disability. Knowledge of an obvious disability (such as the fact an individual uses a wheelchair) will be imputed to the recipient.
- Notwithstanding the broad legislative purpose underlying Section 501, it did not expressly prohibit the federal government from discriminating against employees or applicants with disabilities. Rather, it merely required submission of affirmative action plans. Moreover, Section 501, as initially enacted, did not provide an express remedy for federal employees or applicants for federal jobs who claimed that they were discriminated against on the basis of disability. Thus, many courts ruled that Section 501 neither expressly nor implicitly created a private right of action against a federal agency that allegedly violated the Act. And, while Section 504 held to imply a private right of action, employees of federal agencies were held not to be protected under Section 504 because federal agencies were not viewed as programs or activities that received federal financial assistance. Moreover, the Act did not expressly provide any authority for the promulgation of regulations to define the...
- While both Sections 501 and 504 prohibit federal agencies from discriminating on the basis of disability, the courts are in some disagreement as to whether an individual may sue a federal agency under , 54 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir. 1995). Other courts have held that individuals may sue federal agencies under only one federal law—Section 501. , 2009 WL 5217981 (Col. 2009). In many cases this distinction may make little difference. When an individual files suit under both Sections 501 and 504 he or she must first exhaust the Section 501 administrative remedies. 501 is that the damages available for intentional discrimination under Section 504 may be greater than those available under Section 501. This issue is addressed later in this Nutshell.
- A recipient of federal financial assistance may not avoid Section 504’s mandate against discrimination on the basis of disability by simply claiming that there is a rational basis for the rejection of an applicant with a disability or for a rule that discriminates against persons with disabilities. As the Tenth Circuit noted in
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Definition of “Disability”? 42 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The federal laws discussed in this Nutshell (with the exception of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act discussed in Chapters 12–18), define an individual with a disability as one who: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities; (2) has a record of such impairment ( , someone with a past history of cancer); or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment ( , an individual who has been misclassified as disabled or who is treated as being disabled irrespective of whether the individual is disabled). , 29 U.S.C.A. § 705(9) (Rehabilitation Act); 42 U.S.C.A. § 12102(2) (ADA); 42 U.S.C.A. § 3602(h) (Fair Housing Act Amendments Act of 1988); 49 U.S.C.A. § 41705(a)) (Air Carrier Access Act). Under the first part of this definition, merely having an impairment does not make one “disabled”; the individual must also demonstrate that the impairment .... Thus, courts apply a three-part analysis to... ...an...
- The federal laws are intended to protect individuals who had a physical or mental disability in the past but who no longer suffer from that disability. Thus, the second prong of the definition of an individual with a disability encompasses individuals with a prior history of a physical or mental impairment, such as mental illness, cancer or heart disease, as well as individuals who have been misclassified as having such an impairment, such as one who was improperly classified as intellectually disabled. To satisfy this prong, the individual must show both that (1) he has a record or history of impairment and (2) the impairment substantially limits a major life activity. In the 2008 Amendments, Congress stated its expectation that the term “disability” should be construed broadly. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A). That rule of construction applies to each of the three ways that disability is defined under the statute. Hence, the EEOC regulations state that the “record of” test should “be...
- In 1997, the EEOC issued an Enforcement Guidance on the ADA and Psychiatric Disabilities to assist , in determining what constitutes a psychiatric disability under the ADA.
- Current drug addicts, unlike current alcoholics, are not considered individuals with disabilities under the federal laws. But both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act provide that rehabilitated drug abusers, those participating in a supervised rehabilitation program who are no longer engaging in illegal drug use, and those who are erroneously regarded as engaging in illegal drug use, are protected as individuals with disabilities. Both Acts further provide, however, that employers may adopt policies, including drug testing, to ensure that an employee is no longer using illegal drugs. 42 U.S.C.A. § 12214(b)(3) (ADA); 29 U.S.C.A. § 705(20)(C)(ii) (Rehabilitation Act).
- As previously noted, however, even if an individual has a physical impairment, that does not mean that the individual is disabled under the federal laws, since the physical impairment might not substantially limit a major life activity of the individual. The 2008 ADA Amendments, however, broadened the definition of disability and instructed courts to construe the statute in “favor of broad coverage,” thereby lessening the likelihood that an individual with a physical or mental impairment will be found not to be disabled under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4). That issue is discussed later in this chapter.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Employment Discrimination 126 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Four major federal laws prohibit employment discrimination against persons with disabilities: Sections 501, 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 791, 793 and 794), and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101–12117). The Rehabilitation Act prohibits federal agencies (§ 501), federal contractors having contracts of $10,000 or more with the federal government (§ 503), and recipients of federal financial assistance (§ 504) from discriminating on the basis of disability in any aspect of the employment setting. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits private employers having 15 or more employees, and state and local government entities (regardless of the number of employees), from discriminating on the basis of disability in any aspect of the employment setting.
- As noted in sections 4:12 and 4:13 of this Nutshell, damages are not available under Section 503. The only remedies available against federal contractors are termination of federal contracts in whole or in part, withholding of payment due under existing federal contracts, barring the contractor from receiving future federal contracts, or, if the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) files suit against a contractor and prevails, appropriate injunctive relief. The individual disabled plaintiff has no personal remedies.
- The federal mandate against employment discrimination on the basis of disability applies to every aspect of the employment setting. Thus, Title I of the ADA defines the term “discriminate” in the context of employment actions as including: (1) limiting, segregating, or classifying job applicants or employees in a manner that adversely affects the status or opportunities of a disabled person; (2) participating in a contractual or other arrangement/relationship that has the effect of discriminating against a person with a disability; (3) utilizing administrative criteria or procedures that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability; (4) denying equal jobs or benefits to a disabled person; (5) failing to make reasonable accommodations to allow disabled persons to perform in the workplace; (6) using selection criteria, standards or tests that screen out or tend to screen out one or more individuals with a disability; (7) failing to select and administer employment tests
- The EEOC’s ADA Title I regulations list the terms of an applicable CBA as just one of many factors to be considered when determining whether the undue hardship test is satisfied. Pursuant to the 1992 requirement that the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act be interpreted in the same manner with respect to employment discrimination, the Section 501 caselaw on this subject should be outmoded. Nevertheless, there remains controversy over the questions of: (i) whether an employee who is a member of a union must pursue grievance procedures under an applicable CBA before filing a claim under Title I; (ii) the extent to which the National Labor Relations Act requires employers to bargain with the union when selecting reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, and (iii) whether an employer can unilaterally (without union approval) provide a reasonable accommodation for an individual with a disability that contravenes an applicable CBA. For a discussion of the first of these...
- While employers governed by Sections 503–504 and the ADA may not refuse to hire or promote an individual because of that individual’s disability, such employers are required to affirmatively seek to hire or promote disabled persons. Employers governed by Section 501 (federal agencies), however, must seek to hire (and promote where appropriate) people with disabilities; under this section, preference toward people with disabilities
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Access to Programs and Services 163 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Title II of the ADA prohibits all departments, agencies, special purpose districts or other instrumentalities of any state or local government from: (1) excluding a qualified person with a disability from participating in the programs or activities of the entity; (2) denying a qualified person with a disability the benefits of the services, programs or activities of the entity; or (3) otherwise discriminating against a qualified person with a disability. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12131–12133. This Title, in effect, extends the protections of Section 504 to all state and local government entities, regardless of whether they receive federal financial assistance. The DOJ states that ADA Title II’s prohibition of discrimination by state and local government applies both to employment discrimination and to the accessibility of public services, programs and activities. For employment, however, Title II basically obligates state and local government entities to comply with the mandates set forth in
- In 1998, Congress amended Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794d, to require federal agencies to ensure, unless it would pose an undue burden to do so, that electronic and information technology (EIT) must be accessible to federal employees with disabilities and people with disabilities who are members of the public seeking information or services from the agencies. Section 508 only expressly applies to federal government agencies; the Attorney General has stated that it does not require private companies who market technologies to the federal government to modify EIT products used by company employees or to make their Internet sites accessible to people with disabilities.
- Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act requires that a recipient of federal funds must make all its programs and activities accessible to people with disabilities. Title III of the ADA extends that mandate to certain private entities, and Title II requires that the programs and activities of state and local government entities be similarly accessible. Finally, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794d, requires federal agencies to ensure, unless it would pose an undue burden to do so, that electronic and information technology (EIT) must be accessible to federal employees with disabilities and people with disabilities who are members of the public seeking information or services from the agencies. This chapter will provide an overview of the accessibility requirements under each of these laws.
- An individual may file suit under the Act where he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title III or has “reasonable grounds” for believing that he or she is “about to be subjected to discrimination” in violation of the provisions relating to the construction or alteration of places of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C.A. § 12188(a)(1). Damages are available in private actions brought under ADA Title III; remedies are limited to injunctive relief. Accordingly, the “standing” issues regarding injunctive relief discussed in § 4.3 of this Nutshell also apply to ADA Title III actions.
- The 2010 regulations also create rules about inquiries directed to people who use mobility devices. For those individuals who use devices that are designed for use by individuals with disabilities, a covered entity can ask questions about the nature and extent of the individual’s disability. 28 C.F.R. § 36.311(c)(1). For individuals using other power-driven mobility devices, a covered entity can seek a “credible assurance” that the mobility device is required because of the person’s disability. Such credible assurance can include a state-issued disability parking placard or card. “In lieu of a valid, State-issued disability parking placard or card, or State-issued proof of disability, a public accommodation shall accept as a credible assurance a verbal representation, not contradicted by observable fact, that the other power-driven mobility device is being used for a mobility disability.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.311(c)(2).
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. IDEA: Appropriateness/Least Restrictive Environment; Continuum of Educational Options; Related Services 106 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Primary attention must be given to providing a child with a disability with a FAPE. Application of the LRE principle (discussed in chapter 12 of this Nutshell) although important, is secondary to ensuring appropriateness. The Act requires that every child with a disability must be placed in the least restrictive environment “to the maximum extent .” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5). Thus, not all children are to be educated in a regular education setting. This principle is further evidenced by the requirement that a continuum of alternatives be available—including restrictive settings—as well as by the Act’s emphasis upon individualization when determining what is appropriate for each child with a disability.
- The Act mandates that special education and related services be provided to children with disabilities without charge. Governmental officials have nonetheless sometimes attempted to create exceptions to this requirement, generally to no avail. Disputes have also arisen when school districts have attempted to obtain payments from parents’ private insurance carriers or other third party payors, an issue discussed later in § 14.5 of this Nutshell.
- A State standard that is weaker than the federal requirement must step aside in favor of the basic floor of opportunity guaranteed by the Act. On the other hand, when a state standard is more stringent or demanding than the minimum requirements of the IDEA, the state standard will be applied. The actualization of a higher state standard may assist the parents in some factual circumstances, while in certain limited circumstances it may support the position of the educational officials. In either event, the higher state standard is presumably intended to benefit the child with a disability.
- Moreover, the concept of placing a child with a disability as close to home as possible does not override the exercise of proper administrative discretion by school districts in utilizing resources in an efficient manner. School districts may permissibly concentrate resources at particular schools for particular needs and disabilities.
- The definition of a FAPE includes the requirement that the special education and related services provided to a child with a disability must meet the standards of the SEA. 20 U.S.C.A. § 1401(9). This provision recognizes that education has traditionally been considered in the state’s domain, rather than in the domain of the federal government. A FAPE, as construed in , consists of a properly developed IEP that is reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits to the child. In , however, the Court emphasized that this standard constitutes a federal floor of opportunity, but a ceiling upon the right to educational services. Accordingly, higher state standards are incorporated into the IDEA whenever they are not inconsistent with the Act.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 17. Section 504 and the ADA: Elementary and Secondary Education 39 results (showing 5 best matches)
- As previously discussed in chapter 7 of this Nutshell, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits all state and local government entities from discriminating on the basis of disability. Thus, Title II governs public schools.
- Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act also imposes a non-discrimination obligation on private schools, regardless of whether such schools receive federal financial assistance, with one exception: ADA Title III does not govern private schools operated by a religious organization. 42 U.S.C. § 12187; 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. B § 36.104. Under Title III, all private schools that are not operated by a religious organization are prohibited from discriminating against children on the basis of disability and must provide reasonable accommodations or reasonable modifications in their programs or services when necessary to avoid discrimination against a child with a disability. The definition of disability under ADA Title III is identical to the definition described in Section 18.4.
- The DOE Section 504 regulations require school districts receiving federal financial assistance to establish procedures and standards for evaluating and placing students with disabilities who require either special education or related services. 34 C.F.R. § 104.35. A school district that fails to establish such procedures and to conduct the requisite evaluation of a student with a disability will be held to violate Section 504.
- For purposes of programs and activities providing educational services, local educational agencies may take disciplinary action pertaining to the use or possession of illegal drugs or alcohol against any student who is an individual with a disability and who currently is engaging in the illegal use of drugs or in the use of alcohol to the same extent that such disciplinary action is taken against students who are not individuals with disabilities. Furthermore, the due process procedures at section 104.36 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling) shall not apply to such disciplinary actions.
- Students who are disabled under both the IDEA and Section 504 might be required to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA before filing suit in court. For a discussion of the exhaustion requirement under the IDEA, see § 15.1 of this Nutshell. As discussed in § 16.1, this area of the law is in flux due to the broadening of the definition of disability under Section 504 through the 2008 Amendments. If, however, a plaintiff is not seeking relief also available under IDEA, he or she would not be required to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14. IDEA: Private Schooling; Persons in a Parental Role; Testing and Evaluation; Third-Party Payments 70 results (showing 5 best matches)
- An LEA must be prepared to provide a FAPE to any child with a disability residing within its jurisdiction. Parents of children with disabilities, however, are not required to avail themselves of a proffered placement. They may instead choose to place their children in private schools, even schools that do not adhere to state standards for the education of disabled children. Children with disabilities in such placements are identified as “private school children with disabilities,” and those placements are deemed voluntary. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(10). The 1997 Amendments to the IDEA, as well as the DOE’s IDEA regulations, provide that the local school district is not required to pay for the education of a child with a disability at a private school when the school district offers an appropriate placement. § 1412 (C). For a discussion of what happens if the school district’s placement is found to be appropriate, see chapter 16 of this Nutshell.
- If services pursuant to the Act are provided at a location other than the private school site, “a parentally-placed private school child with a disability must be provided transportation … [f]rom the child’s school or the child’s home to a site other than the private school … and [f]rom the service site to the private school, or to the child’s home, depending upon the timing of the services.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.139(b)(1)(i)(A)–(B). School districts are not required, however, to provide transportation from the child’s home to the private school, and the cost of the transportation may be included in the proportionate amount of federal funds spent on §§ 300.139(b)(1)(ii), (2). For more on the transportation issue, see § 13.11(A) of this Nutshell.
- The DOE does require LEAs to allot a proportionate amount of federal funds for special education and related services for disabled children in private schools based on the number and location of disabled students residing in their jurisdiction. 34 C.F.R. § 300.233. LEAs need not exceed this obligation and are not required to utilize local and state funding for special education and related services. Thus, for example, suppose 300 children with disabilities (covered under the IDEA) reside in “X” school district. Suppose also that 30 of those 300 children with disabilities, or 10%, are voluntarily placed by their parents in private schools. Ten percent of the federal money allocated to X school district for the education of those 300 children must be allocated for necessary services for the 30 children voluntarily enrolled in private schools. (Note that the 1997 Amendments do not obligate ...in private schools with special education and related services.) Under the 1997 Amendments....
- shall be construed as prohibiting or restricting, or authorizing the Secretary to prohibit or restrict, payment … for medical assistance for covered services furnished to a child with a disability because such services are included in the child’s individualized education program established pursuant to … [the IDEA] or furnished to an infant or toddler with a disability because such services are included in the child’s individualized family service plan.
- Under the IDEA, parents and guardians of children with disabilities play a central role. First, an LEA must encourage the participation of a child’s parents or guardian when developing an IEP for a child with a disability. Further, extensive requirements are set forth in the Act to assure that children with disabilities and their parents or guardians are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of free appropriate public education. 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415. Thus, parents have standing to challenge alleged violations of procedural safeguards.
- Open Chapter
Preface 2 results
- As with all Nutshells, a word of caution is required. This book presents an of the major federal laws pertaining to discrimination against people with disabilities. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of those laws. Case citations are limited save for a few leading or significant illustrative examples, and secondary sources are not mentioned. Emphasis is placed on the statutes, regulations and significant points of substantive and procedural law. With a few exceptions there is relatively little discussion of policy issues, although the statutes, regulations and case law are placed in historical perspective for clarity. In addition, major issues of dispute have been noted throughout.
- The objective of this book is to help law students, lawyers and others recognize and understand the federal laws protecting people with disabilities from discrimination. Students taking courses on disability law, education law, employment law and health law are among the intended beneficiaries. The book will also benefit other students as well, such as those taking courses on civil rights issues and disabilities studies. In addition the book will assist lawyers, educators, employers, disabled persons and others who have direct or indirect interests in these significant federal laws, either on their own behalf or on behalf of those they represent or work with.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15. IDEA: Procedural Issues 25 results (showing 5 best matches)
- As discussed in § 12.2 of this Nutshell, the IDEA provides for both federal and private enforcement. For private enforcement, the Part B regulations provide parents with two means of resolving disputes under the IDEA: (i) an impartial due process hearing system, and (ii) a complaint resolution procedure (CRP) formerly known as EDGAR (Education Department General Administrative Regulations). This chapter will focus on the due process hearing procedures. Parents of a child with a disability must first follow these due process procedures before filing suit under the IDEA.
- In , 918 F.Supp. 1515 (M.D.Fla. 1996), the court held that the parents of a child with a disability were not entitled to a jury trial on an IDEA claim because the statute only allows injunctive relief and equitable damages. As seen in § 16.1 of this Nutshell, however, there is actually a split in authority on the availability of compensatory and punitive damages under the IDEA. More importantly, the court also stated that the parents were entitled to jury trial for their claim based on Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act. For a broader discussion of the issue of jury trials for Section 504 claims, see § 4.3(E) of this
- The IDEA specifically provides that any party who is dissatisfied with the final administrative decision concerning a child with a disability may initiate a lawsuit in the appropriate state or federal court. 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(i)(2)(A). Federal and state courts have been held to have concurrent jurisdiction to hear claims under the IDEA. In some situations, however, federal courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction, and instead defer to state courts. If the plaintiff brings a lawsuit in state court, it has been held that the defendant may remove the action to federal court.
- The Supreme Court indicated in that considerable reliance should be placed upon the procedures set forth in the IDEA to help ensure that children with disabilities are provided with appropriate educational placements. When a due process hearing is conducted pursuant to the IDEA, the hearing officer must be impartial in order to preserve the integrity of the process. Accordingly, a hearing officer, whether at a local or state level, may not be “an employee of the State educational agency or the local educational agency involved in the education or care of the child.” 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(f)(3). Further, no “person having a personal or professional interest which would conflict with his or her objectivity in the hearing” may serve as a hearing officer. 34 C.F.R. § 300.511(c)(1)(B).
- The IDEA does not specify which party bears the burden of persuasion at the due process hearing. In , 546 U.S. 49 (2005), the Supreme Court held in a 6–2 decision that the burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief, whether that is the child with a disability or the school district. The petitioner in this litigation recognized that the default rule is for the party seeking relief to have the burden of proof but he argued that that default rule should not apply where the non-moving party has great access to the facts. The Court held, however, that the IDEA gives parents numerous procedural protections to ensure that they have a realistic chance of collecting evidence.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Postsecondary Education 87 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Students can file suit in cases involving disability discrimination in postsecondary education. These cases will use the remedies and procedures for enforcing the access to programs and services requirements of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act discussed in §§ 4.3, 7.28 and 7.29 of this Nutshell.
- Both Section 504 and the ADA incorporate a “safety defense.” Accordingly, an individual with a disability is not qualified for a postsecondary educational program if his or her participation would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals. Courts have interpreted the safety defense as applying under Section 504 when an individual with a disability would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of . As discussed more fully in § 7.14 of this Nutshell, it is unclear whether the “threat to self” reasoning applies to ADA Titles II and III.
- Students may also bring administrative complaints with OCR to remedy disability discrimination in postsecondary education. The Section 504 regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 104.61, state that procedural provisions applicable to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to such complaints. Those procedures are found in 34 C.F.R. § 100.6–100.10 and Part 101 and mirror those described for administrative complaints under Title II which are discussed in § 7.28 of this Nutshell.
- An applicant to a postsecondary educational institution may always voluntarily disclose a disability and ask that it be considered in the admissions determination. Further, once accepted, a student who wishes to receive accommodations or adjustments for his or her disability will have to identify the disability. In either situation the educational institution may require documentation of the disability. The applicant is responsible for providing such documentation at his or her own expense. Moreover, the documentation must be fairly recent, come from an appropriate expert, and be sufficiently comprehensive.
- The court in noted that colleges and universities are free to set their own standards and requirements for admission. The program at issue in served as an expanded type of accommodation to assist students with learning disabilities who were not already succeeding independently in academic settings. Charging a fee for the program was permissible since, although a university may not charge a student with disabilities for the cost of reasonable accommodations, this program went beyond the reasonable accommodation obligation. So long as the university provided requisite reasonable accommodations for a student with disabilities at no cost, the court indicated—without really deciding—that a fee may be charged for additional services which are beyond the university’s obligation. Moreover, the court held that the university could permissibly limit the number of students who would be admitted to the special learning disabilities program as long as: (1) it did not limit the number of...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Constitutional Rights 18 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In most cases, with the exception of the educational arena, people with disabilities seeking to utilize constitutional means to redress discriminatory conduct have obtained little relief—in both employment and non-employment contexts. Constitutional claims based on equal protection and due process theories will only rarely provide relief for persons with disabilities because of the lack of suspect class status or of a fundamental right. Accordingly, the federal laws enacted specifically to assist people with disabilities in avoiding discrimination and entering the mainstream of society are of crucial importance.
- In , children with intellectual disabilities (then called “mental retardation”) sued the state, claiming that they were denied the right to a public education. The suit was based upon three claims: (1) a violation of due process because there was no notice or hearing provided before children with intellectual disabilities were excluded from public education or their educational assignments were changed; (2) a violation of equal protection due to the lack of a rational basis for assuming that children with intellectual disabilities were uneducable and untrainable; and (3) a violation of due process because it was arbitrary and capricious to deny children with intellectual disabilities a right to the education guaranteed by state law. The parties in entered into an interim stipulation that provided:
- In , 473 U.S. 432 (1985), the Supreme Court concluded that persons with intellectual disabilities (then called “mental retardation”) do not constitute a “suspect class” that has historically suffered unequal treatment (like racial minorities) or a “quasi-suspect class” (like women). The Court thus held that the judicial review of state legislation or state action impacting persons with intellectual disabilities would be reviewed under a “rational basis” standard and not the “strict scrutiny” standard used for issues impacting race or national origin or the “heightened scrutiny” standard used for gender questions. The Court’s opinion was premised primarily on the fact that people who are intellectually disabled, unlike people of different races or sex, have a reduced ability to cope with and function in the everyday world. Thus, people with intellectual disabilities are immutably different from others, and states have a legitimate interest in promulgating statutes and regulations...
- As these cases illustrate, the constitutional rights and protections extended to children with disabilities by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment are considerably greater in the area of education than in many other areas of human activity. Moreover, the limited case law on point reflects strong protections for students with disabilities.
- Despite the invocation of rational basis scrutiny in the Court did strike down the zoning ordinance at issue in the case as one founded on irrational and unconstitutional stereotypes about individuals with intellectual disabilities. Some scholars thought that the Court’s decision in therefore signaled a willingness to invoke a sort of heightened rational basis scrutiny in this area. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court revisited the holding in established a special kind of rationality review for disability claims.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Housing 54 results (showing 5 best matches)
- As noted above, Congress based the FHAA’s anti-discrimination provisions on regulations and caselaw under the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs with disabilities often bring claims based on discriminatory housing practices under Section 504 and the ADA in addition to the FHAA. Several courts have held that Section 504 precludes a recipient of federal financial assistance from discriminating against individuals with disabilities with respect to the provision of housing. A plaintiff with a disability may not, however, utilize Section 504 to circumvent the requirements of federal statutes relating to the provision of federally subsidized housing. In other words, Section 504 does not eliminate the requirement that individuals with disabilities must fall within the class of individuals eligible to participate in federally funded housing programs pursuant to laws such as Section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, 12 U.S.C.A. § 1701q, which provides for supportive housing for the elderly.
- The FHAA also bars discrimination with respect to the “terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling,” or with respect to “the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling,” due to the disability of any of the above-named persons. § 3604(f)(2). Discrimination includes: (a) the refusal to allow an individual with a disability to make reasonable modifications of existing premises at his or her own expense; (b) the refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, practices or services when necessary to allow a person with a disability equal use and enjoyment of the premises; and (c) the failure to design and construct multi-family dwellings so that such dwellings are accessible to people with disabilities. illegal, however, to refuse to rent or sell housing to an individual, with or without a disability, “whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in...
- The FHAA states that it does not limit “the applicability of any reasonable local, State or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 3607(b)(1). The legislative history to the statute, however, indicates that this proviso is not intended to permit zoning regulations that discriminate against persons with disabilities.
- Specifically, the legislative history provides that the FHAA “is intended to prohibit the application of special requirements through land-use regulations, restrictive covenants, and conditional or special use permits that have the effect of limiting the ability of such individuals to live in the residence of their choice in the community.” H.R. Rep. No. 711, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 24 (June 17, 1988). Thus, a vast number of courts have granted preliminary or permanent injunctive relief to plaintiffs with disabilities who sought: (1) special exemptions under applicable zoning regulations; or (2) to have zoning regulations interpreted in a manner that would provide persons with disabilities equal access to housing. Numerous courts have recognized that if persons with disabilities are to have equal access to housing in residential areas, for example, zoning regulations regarding single family residences must be modified to allow small groups of persons with disabilities to live together in
- The section of the FHA dealing with discrimination in the rental or sale of housing also prohibits discriminatory advertising practices—namely the indication of “preference, limitation or discrimination” based on any of the protected categories. 42 U.S.C.A. § 3604(c). Thus, for example, owners of apartment houses or developers of housing projects may not advertise in such a manner that would appear to exclude people with disabilities or to reflect a bias against people with disabilities.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Transportation 131 results (showing 5 best matches)
- With respect to mass ground transportation, therefore, this Nutshell will focus on the transportation provisions set forth in the ADA and the DOT’s regulations in 49 C.F.R part 37. The transportation provisions of the ADA constitute a major hub of the Act. Congress recognized that opening the doors to employment and places of public accommodation would be of little use to people with disabilities if they were unable to travel beyond their homes.
- Third, in 1975 Congress amended Section 165(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act to provide funding for public transportation projects through federal financial assistance. Projects funded under the Act must be constructed and operated to allow effective use by persons with disabilities. 23 U.S.C.A. § 142 note.
- (3) An entity may not refuse to serve an individual with a disability or require anything contrary to the ADA “because its insurance company conditions coverage or rates on the absence of individuals with disabilities or . § 37.5(g). Further, while an entity may refuse service to an individual with a disability who engages in “violent, seriously disruptive or illegal conduct,” an entity may not refuse to provide service to such individual “solely because the individual’s disability results in appearance or involuntary behavior that may offend, annoy or inconvenience employees of the entity or other persons.”
- In providing paratransit services, public entities must only respond to the request of persons with disabilities “ ” to meet the comparable level of services provided to individuals without disabilities. 42 U.S.C.A. § 12143(a)(2). Further, public entities are required to provide paratransit services for persons with disabilities only in three circumstances: (1) when an individual’s disability precludes him or her from boarding, riding, or disembarking on or from accessible transportation vehicles without the assistance of another person; (2) when an individual with a disability requires an accessible transportation vehicle during the hours of operation of the fixed-route service but an accessible vehicle is not being provided during the time that the individual requires transportation services; or (3) when an individual’s disability prevents him or her from traveling to a boarding or disembarking location, and he or she is thus unable to utilize public transportation services. ...)(A...
- (p) Qualified individuals with a disability must undergo security screening in the same manner as other passengers, and use of an aid for independent travel shall not subject the person or the aid to special screening procedures if they clear the security system without activating it. Security personnel may, however, examine a mobility aid or assistive device which, in their judgment, may conceal a weapon or other prohibited item. If an aid activates the security system, security searches shall be conducted in the same manner as for other passengers. Private security screenings are not allowed for qualified individuals with a disability to a greater extent, or for any different reason, than for other passengers. If passenger with a disability requests a private screening in a timely manner, however, the carrier must provide it in time for the passenger to enplane. The carrier is not required to provide a private screening if it employs technology that can conduct an appropriate...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Introduction and Overvie 116 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In order for a state to receive or continue to receive federal funding under the IDEA, it must demonstrate: (1) that it has a policy assuring all children with disabilities the right to a FAPE; (2) that it has submitted a plan to the federal government setting forth policies and procedures designed to assure that monies received are expended in a manner consistent with the IDEA; (3) that its educational plan includes procedural safeguards required by the IDEA; (4) that its plan ensures that funds will be used to supplement rather than supplant state and local funds expended for the education of children with disabilities; (5) that its plan contains procedures to assure that to the maximum extent appropriate children with disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled; (6) that its plan contains procedures designed to identify, locate and evaluate all children with disabilities residing in the state; and (7) that its plan contains procedures to assure that testing and...
- Each child with a disability must be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE) appropriate to meet his or her needs. A child with a disability is to be removed from the regular educational environment only when “the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2)(ii). This LRE concept creates a presumption in favor of the integration of children with disabilities. When segregation can be avoided while still providing an appropriate education for a child with a disability, the Act requires integration.
- Part B also contains the “heart” of the IDEA—a set of procedural safeguards intended to protect the interests of children with disabilities from 3 to 21 years of age. Among the most significant of those procedural protections is the requirement that school districts, with the assistance of parents, prepare an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for each student with a disability. Two crucial components of the IDEA are: (a) the requirement of parental involvement in planning an appropriate educational program for their child with a disability and (b) the intent that a child with a disability is to be removed from the regular educational environment only when “the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A).
- The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400 , formerly called the Education of the Handicapped Act and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, was enacted in 1975 to address the failure of state education systems to meet the educational needs of children with disabilities. Congress’s enactment of the IDEA was in part a response to two well-publicized court cases, , 343 F.Supp. 279 (E.D.Pa. 1972), and the persistent efforts of persons with disabilities and organizations interested in the rights of persons with disabilities. In its findings, Congress noted that in the mid-1970s more than half of the approximately 8 million American children with disabilities were not receiving appropriate educational services, one million were excluded entirely from public school educations, and many in regular school programs were educationally unsuccessful because their disabilities were undetected. 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400(c)(2).
- The 2004 Amendments clarified the definition of “specific learning disability.” Congress determined that the “discrepancy” model should not be the only way to determine whether a child has a learning disability. Hence, the IDEA states “when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability … a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(6). That language, of course, is a negative—it does not say how a school district determine the existence of a learning disability. The mere evidence of a discrepancy between aptitude and achievement, however, does not appear to a school district to conclude that a learning disability exists.
- Open Chapter
Copyright Page 5 results
- Nutshell Series, In a Nutshell
- The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- Printed in the United States of America
- © West, a Thomson business, 2004
- © 2016 LEG, Inc. d/b/a West Academic
- Open Chapter
Chapter 18. Disciplining Students with Disabilities 34 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The determination of what constitutes a “change in placement” is critical to applying the discipline limitations under both the IDEA and Section 504. Under the IDEA, a change in placement, if contested by the parents, triggers the “stay-put” provision which prohibits the school district from removing the student from his or her current placement. 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(j). The stay-put provision is more fully discussed in § 12.4(E) of this Nutshell. To summarize, parents must receive prior notice of a proposed change of placement, including an explanation of available procedural safeguards. Similarly, under Section 504 a significant change in placement may be made only after the child is reevaluated, and the parents are given notice and provided with an opportunity for a hearing. A minor change in program, however, does not give rise to due process concerns and the stay-put provision. In other words, if there is not a change in placement, the only limitation set upon a school district...
- (8) If it is determined that the child’s behavior was not a manifestation of the child’s disability, the relevant disciplinary procedure applicable to children without disabilities may be applied to the child in the same manner in which they would be applied to children without disabilities. § 1415(k)(1)(C). During this disciplinary period, however, the child with a disability
- The IDEA states that it shall not “be construed to prohibit an agency from reporting a crime committed by a child with a disability to appropriate authorities or to prevent State law enforcement and judicial authorities from exercising their responsibilities with regard to the application of Federal and State law to crimes committed by a child with a disability.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(9)(A). Accordingly, courts have held that a school district may report criminal conduct of an IDEA-eligible student to the juvenile authorities without conducting a manifestation hearing. , 2001 WL 283154 (E.D.Pa. 2001). Additionally, a court has rejected the argument that a juvenile prosecution constituted a “change in placement” without , 1998 WL 828117 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998). The court held that the juvenile court’s jurisdiction “will not frustrate the IDEA or its ‘stay put’ provisions” and “the IDEA does not preempt a delinquency proceeding concerning a crime committed by a child with a disability,...
- (2) A school district may remove a child with a disability who violates a code of student conduct from their current placement to an appropriate alternative educational setting or another setting, or may suspend a child with a disability, for not more than 10 school days—to the same extent that such alternatives would be applied to children without disabilities. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(B). The 2004 Amendments replaced “order of change in placement” with “remove.”
- Pursuant to the 1997 Amendments, an LEA will be considered to have knowledge of the child’s disability if: (1) the parent has expressed concern in writing to personnel of the appropriate educational agency that the child is in need of special education and related services (unless the parent is illiterate or has a disability that prevents compliance); (2) the behavior or performance of the child demonstrates the need for such services; (3) the parent has requested an evaluation of the child; or (4) the teacher or other LEA personnel has expressed concern to agency personnel about the behavior or performance of the child. 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(k)(5).
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Architectural Barriers 26 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Architectural Barriers Act (ABA), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 4151–4156, was the first federal law intended to ensure a barrier-free environment for persons with disabilities. The National Commission on Architectural Barriers to the Rehabilitation of the Handicapped recognized that voluntary action was insufficient and recommended to Congress that a federal agency be charged with promulgating and enforcing uniform policies, procedures and specifications to provide people with disabilities with access to government-funded or supported buildings.
- Because Section 504 includes a private right of action to file suit in federal court, but no such private right exists under the ABA, a person with a disability may wish to file a claim under Section 504 rather than to file an administrative complaint with the Access Board. In such a case, however, the plaintiff must be aware that the remedy under Section 504 may not encompass architectural changes if other, less obtrusive, methods will achieve accessibility.
- Coverage under the ABA is further limited because, when alterations are made, only the altered portion of a covered building must be made accessible to it. Thus, for example, a building might have accessible restrooms (if the portion of the building containing the restrooms is altered) but have no accessible entry into the building. Further, if a federal agency resides in a (non-leased) building constructed prior to 1968 that has not been altered, the building need not be made accessible to people with disabilities.
- The ABA applies to buildings or facilities used in a manner requiring that they be accessible to the public or where people with disabilities work or live. But the coverage of the ABA is limited. In addition to covering the Washington, D.C. subway system, the Act covers only three types of structures: those that (1) are constructed or altered by or on behalf of the federal government; (2) were leased by the United States between 1968 and 1976 after being constructed in accord with federal plans and specifications, or any structure leased by the United States after January 1, 1977; and (3) receive a federal grant or loan for design, construction or alteration—such as college buildings or hospitals. The latter type of structure, however, only falls within the parameters of the ABA if the funding statute authorizes the imposition of standards for its . A building such as a hospital that receives federal funds will not be covered by the ABA unless such funds are specifically utilized...
- As enacted in 1968, the ABA authorized three federal agencies to promulgate standards regarding the design, construction and alteration of federally owned, leased, or financed buildings to allow ready access to and use by people with disabilities: 1) The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was authorized to prescribe standards for residential structures; 2) the Department of Defense was authorized to prescribe standards for military structures; and 3) the General Services Administration (GSA) was authorized to prescribe standards for all other buildings covered under the Act. The ABA was amended in 1976 to authorize the Postal Service to promulgate standards with respect to postal facilities. As amended in 1976, the ABA , rather than simply authorizes, the four above-named federal agencies to promulgate the specified standards with respect to the buildings or facilities covered within their respective jurisdictions.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16. IDEA: Remedies 50 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Even if damages are held not to be available under the IDEA, damages may be available for a violation of other laws. The Handicapped Children’s Protection Act (HCPA) amended the IDEA in 1986 to provide that: “[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under the Constitution, title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 …, or other Federal statutes protecting the rights of children and youth with disabilities.” 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(f).
- In any action or proceeding brought under this subsection, the court in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs to the parents or guardian of a child or youth with a disability who is the
- Even if compensatory education is held not to be an available remedy under the IDEA, such relief may yet be available if a student pursues a claim under Section 504. For example, the official comments to the Section 504 regulations state that “persons beyond the [school] age limits … may in appropriate cases be required to be provided services that they were formerly denied because of a recipient’s violation of Section 504.” 34 C.F.R. Pt. 104, App. A. For more on this issue, see chapter 17 of this Nutshell.
- Compensatory educational services are designed to remedy—in whole or in part—the progress lost by a student with a disability because he or she was previously denied a FAPE. The issue of whether the IDEA provides a right to compensatory educational services has received more attention since the Supreme Court ruled in
- The expenses for which parents are entitled to reimbursement presumably include all those necessary to enable the child with a disability to receive a FAPE. A variety of expenses have been ordered to be reimbursed, including tuition expense, costs of residential placement, expenses for related services, expenses for other services required to permit a student to receive a FAPE, lost earnings by a parent for time expended relating to protecting the child’s rights, and even interest on payments made for a unilateral placement or interest on borrowings in order to make such payments. The balancing of equities can also result in neither party gaining a total victory, but rather in the court imposing a Solomon-like decision concerning who shall bear the costs.
- Open Chapter
Conclusion 1 result
- As noted in the introductory chapter to this Nutshell, this book serves as only a cursory guide to a very complex area of the law. It should not be used for comprehensive analysis. Individuals should consult with an attorney or conduct their own research before determining the appropriate rules in specific subject areas.
- Open Chapter
Title Page 3 results
Outline 59 results (showing 5 best matches)
Index 96 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Disability-based distinctions, § 11.6(A)(2)(a)
- Discrimination vis-à-vis other persons with disabilities, § 7.16
- Qualified individual with a disability, § 7.10
- Qualified individual with a disability, §§ 5.2; 5.4; 5.5; 5.10; 5.14
- Children with disabilities, defined, § 12.3(A) Compensatory educational services, § 16.4
- Open Chapter
Table of Cases 13 results (showing 5 best matches)
- American Disability Ass’n, Inc. v. Chmielarz ..................... 343
- National Coalition for Students with Disabilities v. Bush ..................... 343
- California Association of the Physically Handicapped, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission ..................... 220
- Delise v. Federal Express Corp. ..................... 128
- Tenbrink v. Federal Home Loan Bank ..................... 345
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: November 20th, 2015
- ISBN: 9781634601153
- Subject: Disability Law
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: This Nutshell presents an overview of the major federal disability laws with emphasis on the statutes, regulations, and significant points of substantive and procedural law. The fifth edition includes significant focus on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including its 2008 Amendment and accompanying regulations. Features coverage on constitutional rights; the definition of "disabled"; Rehabilitation Act of 1973; employment discrimination; programs and services; and housing, education, and transportation. Also reviews the many relevant areas of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), including the 2004 Amendments.