This site will periodically highlight major new legal developments, with a focus on student issues under the IDEA and Sec. 504/ADA. To sign up for email notifications of these updates, please scroll all the way down the page (if viewing on a mobile device) or scroll right (if viewing on a desktop computer). Thanks!
December’s legal alert summarizes two recent court decisions that respectively focus on (a) when districts are liable for the attorneys’ fees of parents in IDEA cases (H.E. v. Walter D. Palmer Leadership Learning Partners Charter School (2017)), and (b) when the state education agencies are subject to suit for the complaint procedures mechanism for IDEA dispute resolution (Valenzuela v. Torlakson (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 25, 2017)).
November’s legal alert summarizes two recent federal appeals court decisions that respectively illustrate the scope of (a) the Section 504/ADA non-interference protection for special education personnel (Frakes v. Peoria School District No. 150 (2017)), and (b) the “prevailing party” status of parents for IDEA attorneys’ fees (Walter D. Palmer Leadership Learning Partners Charter School (2017)).
This latest monthly legal alert summarizes two recent officially published federal court decisions, R.E.B. v. Hawaii Department of Education (2017) and Richardson v. District of Columbia (2017), that respectively illustrate (a) an unusually rigorous interpretation of the requirements for IEPs, and (b) the continuing relaxed application of the requirements for evaluations.
September’s legal alert summarizes two recent officially published federal court decisions, M.L. v. Smith (2017) and F.L v. Board of Education of Great Neck U.F.S.D. (2017). These decisions respectively illustrate (a) a novel issue under the IDEA, and (b) a set of continuing issues, including procedural FAPE (e.g., parental participation), substantive FAPE (e.g., Endrew F.), and eligibility for extended school year (ESY).
This latest monthly legal alert summarizes two recent officially published federal court decisions, I.Z.M. v. Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan School District (2017) and I.L. v. Knox County School District (2017), that illustrate a wide range of continuing and emerging issues under the IDEA and Section 504/ADA, including accessible instructional materials, state seclusion/restraints laws, and state education agency (SEA) liability.
This monthly legal alert reports two very recent cases that illustrate the continuing litigation concerning two major issues for students with disabilities–peer harassment, including bullying, and special education eligibility, including the “need prong.” Both are from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals: (1) Doe v. Columbia-Brazoria Independent School District (2017) for peer harassment under Section 504 and the ADA, and (2) D.L. v. Clear Creek Independent School District (2017) for special education eligibility under the IDEA.
** Due to temporary technical difficulties, last month’s legal update may not have reached your inbox. To read it, please visit https://perryzirkel.com/2017/06/01/june-2017-legal-update/ **
This latest monthly legal alert summarizes a recent published, federal appellate court decision that is significant for its multiple issue rulings. In M.C. v. Antelope Valley Unified School District (2017), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made several rulings that were completely or partially against the defendant district that appear to have notable implications for special education practice and litigation. Although not at all limited to these particular facts, the child in this case was a high school student who had a genetic disorder that rendered him blind and with a host of developmental delays in all academic areas. This decision is binding only in the nine states in the Far West that encompass the Ninth Circuit. However, it is not unusual for published federal appellate decisions to have a radiating, persuasive effect on other jurisdictions. Some of these rulings are much more likely than others to “stick” in jurisdictions beyond the Ninth Circuit.