CSBA petitions U.S. Supreme Court in case on special education services
Published: February 18, 2014
CSBA's Education Legal Alliance has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of two California school districts contesting a misapplication of the Americans with Disabilities Act that has national implications.
In a friend-of-the-court brief the Alliance, joined by the National School Boards Association, urges the Supreme Court to review Tustin Unified School District v. K.M. and Poway Unified School District v. D.H. The brief contends that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit misapplied the ADA to cases involving California students with a hearing impairment, rather than correctly applying the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
In its ruling, the 9th Circuit deferred to an interpretation of the ADA by the U.S. Department of Justice, which argued that school districts have additional obligations under the ADA to go beyond a student's Individualized Education Program that is developed by an IEP team under IDEA.
In each of the cases, the school district denied the request of a high school student with hearing disabilities to use a word-for-word translation service in the classroom but offered other accommodations, including an alternative transcription service and the use of visual cues. Both times, an administrative hearing officer and a federal district found that the school district had fully complied with the IDEA. However, the 9th Circuit sided with the plaintiffs, saying that the ADA imposes additional obligations not covered under IDEA.
The appellate decision overturns decades of precedent and creates an undue administrative and financial burden on school districts, the Alliance argues. Unless the Supreme Court reviews the case, the lower court's "misinterpretation" of federal law could impact more than 6.4 million public school students who have disabilities.
The key argument presented by the Alliance brief (prepared by an attorney from the law firm of Lozano Smith, who prepared the brief on the Alliance's behalf) states: "Districts that have completed the IDEA's IEP process and selected communicative devices and services for [hard of hearing] students that, although not a parent's preference, are effective, and prevailed in a special education due process hearing on the issue, will now find that all efforts, resources, and expertise expended through that process are for naught. Instead, parents can now sue under the ADA to undo those IDEA procedures, resulting in the award of damages and attorneys‘ fees under the ADA against unsuspecting school districts."
The court is expected to indicate whether it will hear the case by early March.