Case Briefs by Sherrie… For what they are worth!

Seattle School District v. B.S., 82 F.3d 1493 (9th Cir. 1996) FACTS All about A.S. (expelled, psychological treatment, placement is “mainstream,” parents request independent evaluation) Lower Courts ALJ rules that SD violated procedural rights and failed to provide FAPE, orders SD to pay for evaluation, residential placement in Montana and attorneys fees District Court affirms ALJ Seattle appeals to 9th Circuit

Seattle School District v. B.S. continued ISSUES Is the SD required to pay for the independent evaluation? Is the SD required to pay for placement in Montana? Is B.S. entitled to attorneys’ fees? HOLDING 9th Circuit affirms and contemplates the district court ruling

Seattle School District v. B.S. continued REASONING/RATIONALE SD must reimburse for the independent evaluation because it failed to provide an appropriate evaluation as demonstrated by failing to 1) ensure that someone on the assessment team had knowledge of A.S.’s suspected disability; 2) reconcile parent’s experts’ placement recommendations as required by state law. SD failed to provide an appropriate education ( program and placement) and must pay for non-medical costs of Intermountain placement because 1) A.S. was unable to derive any meaningful educational benefit from past education and no evidence new IEP would be better; 2) consideration of factors required in determining LRE support residential placement. IDEA allows attorneys’ fees to parents or guardians when they are prevailing parties; B.S. prevailed and is entitled to costs related to both lawsuits.

Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462 (4th Cir.) FACTS All about Kristen… Kristen alleges that she was discriminated against in violation of Title II of the ADA and Virginia state law (intentional infliction of emotional distress). Sues teacher, principal (in their individual capacities); school board. District Court dismissed, holding held that there was no discrimination based on her depression. “Participation in the school play was not based solely, if at all, on her alleged disability . . . But was supported by valid and uniformly enforced policy of absenteeism.” Kristen appeals to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Baird v. Rose continued ISSUE Did the district court erroneously apply the law to the facts in this case? HOLDING Reversed in part—facts sufficient to support act of discrimination based on depression and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Affirmed in part—ADA does not allow plaintiffs to sue individuals. Remanded back to district court for reconsideration and further proceedings--i.e., do it better next time.

Baird v. Rose continued REASONING/RATIONALE ADA Title II: Kristen is person with disability (depression) ADA prohibits individuals with disabilities from being “excluded from participation” Kristen was excluded from show choir Evidence suggests it happened only when Rose was informed of Kristen’s disability. Title II causative standard is not Section 504 standard of “solely by reason of” but rather Title VII standard of “motivating” factor. Absenteeism may have played a role in the exclusion, but evidence suggests that so did disability in violation of ADA Title II. Virginia State Law claim: Considering the elements that must be proved, only issue is whether Rose’s conduct could rise to level of “outrageous” as required by law. Yes, because Kristen is child and Rose is her teacher/authority role.