Relief Has Been Denied in Most Anti-Masking Lawsuits Against Schools

Over the last two years, Ohio school boards have become a lightning rod for citizens to unload their personal and political thoughts on almost everything pandemic related. From virtual learning to masking to quarantining, school boards have absorbed the diverse and sometimes raucous opinions of their constituents. Outcomes in recent lawsuits suggest that courts are largely unwilling to interfere with the discretion of school boards to make unpopular decisions.

Montgomery County Schools Cases

In September 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Dayton dismissed three separate lawsuits brought by pro se parents against three different Montgomery County Schools (Huber Heights City Schools, Mad River Local Schools and Northmont City Schools). The parents each alleged that the schools’ policies requiring masks were a violation of their children’s constitutional rights. The dismissals by the Court were not based on the merits of the claims, but rather on a rule prohibiting parents from filing pro se claims in federal court on behalf of their minor children.[i] The Court held that, “the rule against non-lawyer representation protects the rights of those before the court by preventing an ill-equipped layperson from squandering the rights of the party he purports to represent.”[ii]

Chillicothe City School District Case

On Nov. 1, 2021, four parents filed a lawsuit against the Chillicothe City School District and school administrators alleging that the school’s policy requiring masks was “arbitrary, capricious and based on ignorance due to failure to inquire into facts.”[iii] The parents’ pro se claims brought on behalf of their minor children were dismissed sua sponte by the Court for the same reason as those in the Montgomery County cases, while claims brought by the parents on their own behalf survived. Nonetheless, the parents’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was denied because the parents “[had] not shown that they [were] likely to succeed on the merits of the remaining claims or that irreparable injury would accrue from denying the motion.”[iv]

In addition to the Chillicothe case, at least two other cases included requests for a TRO by parent-plaintiffs, and the courts denied the requests in both cases.

Mayfield City School District Case

In September 2021, a parent in the Mayfield City School District sought a TRO against the school district because the school board was attempting to institute a mask requirement.[v] The parent argued that the mask mandate caused “immediate and irreparable harm” to students, staff, and the general community.[vi] The parent also alleged that the mandate was a violation of her daughter’s constitutional rights and impeded on her daughter’s fundamental right to a public education.[vii]

The Court denied the motion for TRO because the parent failed to meet the necessary elements, finding that masking did not impede on the student’s ability to attend school. The Court also found that there was likely no chance of irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s daughter or other minors should the mask mandate be allowed to stand.[viii] Notably, the Court identified that, “the mask mandate was implemented to prevent serious injury, illness, and death in the District and broader community…[and] the risks associated with not wearing a mask in public schools are well-documented and supported by scientific evidence.”[ix]

Forest Hills Local School District Case

In another case filed in September, a plaintiff in the Forest Hills Local School District took issue with the meeting in which the school board adopted the mask policy. The plaintiff alleged a violation of the Open Meetings Act[x] and sought a TRO preventing the school board from enforcing the mask requirement.[xi] The Court denied the relator’s request for a TRO after holding a conference with the parties.[xii] After the TRO was denied, the plaintiff filed an affidavit to have the judge disqualified due to the judge’s comments at the conference, but the Ohio Supreme Court determined that the judge was not prejudicial.[xiii]

Hudson City School District Case

A more recent case was filed by three parents in the Summit County Common Pleas Court on Jan. 10 against the Hudson City School District. The parents sought injunctive relief prohibiting the school district from enforcing masking and quarantine rules absent a health department order, among other requests for relief. As of February 7, 2022, no hearing on injunctive relief has been scheduled or held, and no such relief has been ordered by the court, although the case is still pending.

While some case dismissals have been procedural, and others are only denials of immediate injunctive relief, the outcomes to date indicate a reluctance on the part of Ohio courts to disrupt the difficult decisions made by local boards of education—at least when it comes to masks.

[i] See P.G. v. Huber Hts. City Schl Dist., 3:21-cv-257 (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 23, 2021), citing Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir. 2002).

[ii] Id., citing Bass v. Leatherwood, 788 F.3d 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2015).

[iii] Wettersten v. Chillicothe City Schl. Dist., 2:21-cv-5187 (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 1, 2021).

[iv] Id.

[v] P.M. v. Mayfield City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:21 CV 1711 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 13, 2021).

[vi] Id. at 2.

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Id. at 4.

[x] Doe v. Forest Hills Loc. Schl. Dist., A-2102899 (Hamilton Cty., Aug. 18, 2021) (documents sealed).

[xi] In Re Disqualification of Jenkins, No. 21-AP-114, ¶¶17-18 (Sep. 22, 2021).

[xii] Id.

[xiii] Id. at 2.

Mark Weiker, Esq., Abdnour Weiker, LLP

Lawyers4Students.com

Educators should carefully consider school policies regarding masking.

As you prepare your classrooms with supplies, fun stimuli, and all the accoutrements of a cozy room for fostering learning and creativity, let’s hope you also have time to prepare for the 2021-2022 school year mentally; not just for the continued repetitive phrases of “unprecedented times” and “socially distanced,” but also for the difficult decisions and choices you may face in and out of the classroom.

Although, many schools had reached maximum capacity and limited or altogether abandoned masking by end-of-year this spring, many districts are now reconsidering these policies for a new school year amidst the new Delta variant of COVID-19 and its likely successors. For educators, this could mean continued or renewed policies requiring masking, vaccination, social distancing, and even remote teaching. While most public school educators are contract employees with due process rights, districts are nevertheless able to require their employees to wear masks and provide proof of vaccination with very limited exception. This means that unless you have deeply held religious beliefs which prevent you from masking or vaccination, or you have a disability recognized by the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), you will face discipline up to and including termination if you fail to comply with your district’s masking and vaccination policies.

If you have a disability under the ADA, such a respiratory disability, that prevents you from wearing a mask, you should request a reasonable accommodation from your district as soon as possible. Although, your district is not required to accommodate you if it causes the district an undue hardship, they are required to engage with you in good faith to determine if a reasonable accommodation can be made. This process requires sufficient documentation from your doctor, and sometimes creative ideas for accommodations that suit you and simultaneously do not create a hardship for your district.

An educator’s refusal to comply with district policies can not only lead to discipline from the district, but it could also lead to an investigation and discipline by the Ohio Department of Education (“ODE”). For instance, if a district threatens to terminate an educator for violating a masking policy, and the educator resigns under that threat of termination, the district must report that resignation to ODE. ODE will then initiate an investigation of the educator for a violation of the Licensure Code of Professional Conduct. During the pendency of that investigation, educators are unable to renew their credentials, and could face limitation, suspension, or even revocation of licensure. As such, we highly recommend that educators facing discipline in their districts reach out to counsel as soon as possible, not only to protect their due process rights in the district, but also to help them build the best defense possible against an ODE investigation.

Understanding Amended Ohio House Bill 244 - The Vaccine Discrimination Bill

With schools, masks, and vaccinations being at the top of many parent’s minds, the recently passed, soon to take effect Amended House Bill (H.B.) 244 has been the subject of much discussion.  Set to take effect on October 13, 2021, the relevant amendment of H.B. 244 prohibits public schools from the following:

• Requiring any individual to receive a vaccine that has not been fully approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and,
• Discriminating against any individual who has not received a vaccination, which includes requiring an unvaccinated individual to engage in or refrain from engaging in activities or precautions that differ from the activities or precautions of a vaccinated individual.[1]

In application, H.B. 244 has far-reaching effects in terms of restricting how public school districts and public colleges and universities in Ohio are able to structure their COVID-19 policies.

Under H.B. 244, a public school, college, or university may not require that any student or employee receive a COVID-19 vaccine if the vaccine has not received full FDA approval.  Currently all three vaccines being administered in the United States – Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen – have only been authorized for emergency use.[2]  Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have both applied for full approval, but there is no clear timeline on when approval will be granted.  This means that unless and until any of these vaccines are fully approved by the FDA, H.B. 244 will prevent vaccine mandates in Ohio public schools.

Additionally, H.B. 244 specifies that Ohio public schools cannot discriminate between vaccinated and unvaccinated persons.  Specifically, a public school cannot compel unvaccinated persons to adhere to different restrictions and requirements than vaccinated people.  The most visible and prevalent way this will appear is H.B. 244’s application to school mask policies.  Under H.B. 244, a public school cannot require unvaccinated persons to wear masks, while permitting vaccinated persons to be mask-free.  Practically speaking, H.B. will require public schools to create a one-size-fits-all COVID-19 policy as it relates to vaccine status for the upcoming school year and beyond.  Public schools will be unable to incentivize receiving a vaccine with the prospect of an optional mask.

What should also be noted is that H.B. 244 only applies to public schools, colleges, and universities.  As such, private educational institutions are not impacted by H.B. 244 and may implement vaccine mandates as well as mask and testing mandates that apply unequally depending upon COVID-19 vaccination status.  Despite the inapplicability to private schools, such schools would be wise to be aware of the implications of H.B. 244.

With no federal mandate and a patchwork of policies across the country and the state, the amended provisions of H.B. 244 forces public educational institutions into adopting all or nothing policies related to COVID-19 which they must carefully craft to avoid running afoul of this amended bill.

---

[1] Am. H. B. No. 244 (134^th G.A.)

[2] https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines

What is NIL and what does it mean for student athletes?

“NIL” has become THE hot acronym in college sports. It stands for “name, image, and likeness”, and describes rights that have now been recognized in Ohio through Executive Order 2021-10d, signed by Governor DeWine on June 28th of this year. The Order went into effect on July 1st. Simply put, Governor DeWine’s action now allows college student-athletes in Ohio to be compensated for their names, images, and likenesses.

For much of collegiate sports history, schools could only compensate students for their athletic with academic scholarships and nothing more. It wasn’t until 2014 that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) granted permission to member athletic conferences to give scholarships that cover the cost of attendance in full.

In June of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court altered college sports forever with a “game changing” ruling. In its unanimous NCAA v. Alston decision, it ruled that the NCAA’s cap on academic benefits violated federal anti-trust laws. Regarding NIL rights, Justice Kavanaugh stated in his concurring opinion that if other NCAA limitations on student-athlete benefits were challenged in a court of law, those too would likely be ruled to be in violation of anti-trust laws.

It was after the Alston ruling that the states got into the act, passing legislation or issuing executive orders to clarify how each would handle these newly-recognized rights. Governor DeWine’s executive order did just that. It does contain limitations. Student-athletes may not enter into contracts with companies engaged in certain businesses: marijuana, nicotine products, alcohol, gambling, adult entertainment, and controlled substances. Further, student-athletes may not have their sponsors’ logos presented during team activities or activities that may conflict with school functions.

When entering into an NIL contract, the student-athlete must disclose the contract to the school and before it becomes effective, the school may determine that it conflicts with the school’s policies or relevant team rules or policies. If the school makes such a determination, the student-athlete has the opportunity to renegotiate the contract to eliminate the conflict. It is important to note that schools cannot claim that any NIL money that the student-athlete receives is part of his or her academic-athletic scholarship.

There are just over 490,000 student-athletes in the United States. Many are now taking advantage of their new status and negotiating sponsorship deals. Social media platforms, especially Tik Tok, are providing access to advertisers that want these new faces to create self-aware ads and skits. Student-athletes have created clothing lines, hosted sponsored podcasts, and done meet-and-greets. It truly is the “Wild West” for this new phase of endorsements.

Abdnour Weiker is able to assist college student-athletes with NIL opportunities. For more information, please contact us at 614-745-2001.

Public schools with "mask optional" policies risk losing immunity.

A. The Choice

Boards of education in Ohio have been placed in a tough position to start the school year. Boards have been forced to choose whether to require masks for their students and employees. Schools were placed in this position because the state legislature effectively removed the power of the Governor and the Ohio Department of Health to issue mask mandates (and most other related health orders). 2021 Sub.S.B.  No. 22.

With this authority removed, the Ohio Department of Health can now only “recommend” that schools require masks for the upcoming school year. See, COVID-19 Health and Prevention Guidance for Ohio K-12 Schools, Ohio Department of Health (Rev. July 26, 2021). Some local health departments have more recently heightened this to “strongly recommend” full masking of all students since infections associated with the Delta variant have increased, just in time for the start of the school year. Mask Advisory Issued for All Residents Indoors Regardless of Vaccination Status, Franklin County Public Health Advisory (August 5, 2021).

The response by boards of education at public schools has been mixed. Some boards of education have appreciated the risk to students and employees articulated by local health authorities and have adopted a full masking requirement for the start of the 2021-2022 school year. Other boards have recognized the potential for an increased risk for the unvaccinated, including those age 11 and under who do not have access to a vaccine, and opted to require masks for everyone at the elementary level.

A surprising number of boards have opted for a completely voluntary mask policy, perhaps because they believe masking is a purely personal decision, or that the risks articulated by health departments and federal agencies are overstated. There’s been some healthy (and unhealthy) debate surrounding the issue, which has included a variety of reasons for schools opting to go “mask-optional.”

B. Sovereign Immunity; Exceptions Allowing Claims

One reason that boards may feel confident in adopting a mask-optional policy is because boards of education enjoy state sovereign immunity for decisions made in the exercise of their governmental functions. R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). School employees enjoy similar immunity for decisions made within the scope of their duties. R.C. 2744.03(A)(6).

Importantly, however, sovereign immunity is not absolute and the decision to go mask-optional could expose a school board--or a school employee recommending such a policy--to an increased risk of liability.

To begin, sovereign immunity does not apply to contract claims, claims that arise from an employment relationship with the school, or claims brought by an employee related to his or her “conditions…of employment.” R.C. 2744.09(A)-(C). Sovereign immunity also does not apply to “civil claims based upon alleged violations of the constitution or statutes of the United States.” R.C. 2744.09(E).

Therefore, one could easily imagine a teacher or other school employee asserting a claim that the employment agreement has been violated due to a voluntary masking policy in a pandemic, or that the conditions of employment have been improperly altered, making the employee more vulnerable to infection. Such a claim could be bolstered by high infection rates in any given school or by the fact that most school districts in the state required masks for all students and staff just last school year.

Sovereign immunity could also be side-stepped by any aggrieved party by asserting a claim under a federal statute or the U.S. Constitution. The federal statute possibilities are numerous, but the Americans With Disabilities Act would be one leading example, as this law requires reasonable accommodations to be made for students and employees with disabilities. 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, et seq. Other claims could come through the “state-created danger” theory under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, especially given that school-age children in Ohio are required by law to attend school. See, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989)("[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being”); see also, R.C. 3321.01(A)(1)(compelling students in Ohio to attend school).

Further, while school employees (such as superintendents and principals) enjoy immunity protections similar to those provided to boards of education, this immunity does not apply where “the employee's acts or omissions were with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.” R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b). So, depending on the specific circumstances surrounding a risk of infection, or an actual transmission of the virus, there could be individual liability for school employees for school-level decisions that ignore a known risk, assuming the decision could reasonably be considered reckless, in bad faith or malicious.

In sum, there are very plausible exceptions to sovereign immunity for mask-optional policies.

C. Additional Immunity for Covid-Related Claims; Similar Exceptions

Notably, the Ohio legislature provided schools with another layer of immunity for Covid-related claims in 2020 with House Bill 606. This was signed by Governor DeWine on September 14, 2020, and provides in pertinent part:

No civil action for damages for injury, death, or loss to person or property shall be brought against any person [including schools and state institutions of higher education] if the cause of action on which the civil action is based, in whole or in part, is that the injury, death, or loss to person or property is caused by the exposure to, or the transmission or contraction of, MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, or SARS-CoV-2, or any mutation thereof. 2020 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 606, §2(A).

However, an exception to this law exists for reckless and intentional conduct, very similar to the exception for sovereign immunity above. Immunity under H.B. 606 does not apply if, “it is established that the exposure to, or the transmission or contraction of, any of those viruses or mutations was by reckless conduct or intentional misconduct or willful or wanton misconduct on the part of the person [or school] against whom the action is brought.” Id. "Reckless conduct” is defined in the law as:

Conduct by  which, with heedless indifference  to the consequences, the person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person's conduct is likely to cause an exposure to, or a transmission or contraction of, MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, or SARS-CoV-2, or any mutation thereof, or is likely to be of a nature that results in an exposure to, or a transmission or contraction of, any of those viruses or mutations. Id., §2(D)(3).

To be sure, the same law prevents health orders and recommendations from being introduced as evidence in tort actions. Id., §2(B). Even so, the infection rates and/or exclusion of students from the classroom because of necessary quarantining could be enough to prove that any given school district violated a duty of care to its students or employees, and that the act of implementing a mask-optional policy was reckless. This is especially true where a school continues with a mask-optional policy despite an ongoing or increasing risk.

Finally, the immunity under house Bill 606 is temporary and is due to expire on September 30, 2021, unless it is extended by the legislature. Id., §2(E).

In sum, the immunity laws that boards of education, superintendents and principals may be relying upon may not be as strong as they think when they adopt a district-wide mask-optional policy. While the decision is within a board of education’s discretion, it should be made with caution and an understanding of this exposure.

Mark Weiker, Esq., Student and Educator Rights Attorney, Abdnour Weiker, LLP

www.Lawyers4Students.com

Compensatory Education & Recovery Services

Compensatory Education & Recovery Services: COVID-19 CONSIDERATIONS FOR STUDENTS ON IEPs & 504 Plans

On March 12, 2020, Governor DeWine ordered all of Ohio’s public, community and private K-12 school buildings to be closed due to the ongoing coronavirus health crisis. If a school district closed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and did not provide educational services to the general student population (whether via in person or virtual instruction), then the district was not required to provide services to students with disabilities during that time period.

However, once schools resumed, the district, to the greatest extent possible, was required to make every effort to provide special education and related services to the child in accordance with their Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 Plan.[1] Schools had a lot of flexibility in how to provide these services to students throughout the pandemic, but ultimately, the requirement for schools to provide Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to students receiving special education services was not waived due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

COMPENSATORY SERVICES

Although compensatory services (also called compensatory education or comp ed) are not addressed in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or other federal or state regulations, most state education agencies have released guidance surrounding compensatory education as well as the potential for recovery services that may be needed as a result of COVID-19 school closures. Compensatory services are educational services above and beyond what is normally due to a student, resulting from a failure of the school to provide those services under a child’s IEP or 504 Plan. The purpose is to place the student in the position they would have been in if the school had provided the appropriate services, or to “compensate” the student for learning and skills that were lost when special education and related services were not provided. Under compensatory services, there is no obligation to provide a minute-by-minute or day-for-day compensation for the time missed, although sometimes it is determined that missed services will be calculated by minutes or days and made up as an equitable remedy. However, in some cases, comp ed could be more than what was lost depending on the child’s circumstances as each situation should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Recent case law has established that “whereas ordinary IEPs need only provide ‘some benefit’, compensatory awards must do more – they must compensate.” [2]However, since school building closures were due to a public health emergency, the typical framework used to determine whether or not compensatory services should be provided may not be appropriate under the circumstances, as most school districts did not outright fail to provide FAPE. Rather, they were unable to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education because of state-mandated school closures.

Notably, if the child with a disability was refused services by a school district or did not receive services or instruction during building closures while students in general education were receiving services, then actual compensatory services may be warranted.

RECOVERY SERVICES

As school districts begin to return to normal, most are planning on how best to meet and transition the needs of students who receive special education and related services during such an unprecedented time. Many states have announced recovery services or COVID-19 specific compensatory services, which refer to services determined by the IEP or 504 team needed to remedy a student’s skill regression, behavior loss, and/or lack of progress that resulted from a school district’s inability (not intentional failure) to provide FAPE during an unavoidable closure. Recovery services should be considered only after a period of recoupment is assessed. This occurs when a student receives the services set out in their IEP or 504 Plan for a set period of time once schools reopen, thus allowing them time to “recoup” the lost skills or behavior or to make progress to the level(s) determined appropriate by the IEP or 504 team prior to the extended school closure. If the student continues to show gaps in their learning and skills after this period, they may need additional supports and services to “recover” from the interruptions in the delivery of their services during COVID-19. Recovery services are also not defined in the IDEA but have been increasingly used to describe a school district’s response to the gaps in student learning caused by COVID-19 and the school closures beginning in the 2019-2020 school year. As with compensatory services, recovery services should be based on a child’s individual needs, assessments and progress documentation.

ESY SERVICES

Compensatory and recovery services are not the same as Extended School Year services (ESY). ESY services provide individual instruction and services to a child in order to prevent the severe or considerable loss of skills or learning during time outside of the regular school year. ESY services are not dependent on the appropriateness of services provided in an IEP or 504 Plan, and a child may be entitled to ESY services as well as compensatory or recovery services. These services may look similar in practice and delivery but should be made on an individualized determination based on what is necessary for the child to make meaningful progress in the least restrictive environment.

A child is not automatically entitled to compensatory, recovery or ESY services by virtue of state-wide school closures alone. Parents and guardians of children with disabilities should know the difference between these services to which their child may be entitled. School districts should never pressure families to waive special education services, including compensatory, recovery or ESY services. Families and schools should work together to determine what educational services will be provided based on the individual student’s needs. Ultimately, due to the nature of the shutdown resulting from a global pandemic, education agencies and courts will likely show deference to the emergency determinations made by school officials during this unprecedented time. Parents should regularly communicate with their child’s school and document these conversations about the potential for additional services related to COVID-19.

KEY POINTS/RECAP

• If a school district intentionally fails to provide FAPE to a child with a disability, they may be entitled to compensatory services.

• If a child with a disability tends to regress after long break periods, they may be entitled to extended school year services.

• If a school district was unable to provide special education and related services to a child with a disability during a school closure, and the child has not made progress in their learning after a period of recoupment, they may be entitled to recovery services.

• A child with a disability is not automatically entitled to these services due to COVID-19 school closures; rather, the determination of services should be made on an individualized basis by the IEP or 504 team.

• Compensatory, recovery and ESY services can be provided over an extended period of time but should be provided in the least restrictive environment for students receiving special education.

[1] 34 CFR §§ 300.101 and 300.201 (IDEA), and 34 CFR § 104.33 (Section 504)

[2] Reid ex Rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005)

by Lauren A. Sabo, Esq., Abdnour Weiker, LLP

Questions? Contact us at (614) 745-2001

Updates on State Testing for Spring 2021: Ohio School Law

Does my child have to participate in spring testing?

We can all agree that 2020 was a year like we have never experienced before. The educational institutions tried their best to accommodate the changing situation and help support students the best that they could. One of those ways was to forgo the traditional state testing in the spring of 2020. As the new school year began and schools had a better plan in place for how they would educate our children, the state agreed to bring back the mandatory state testing but gave districts a lot of flexibility on when those tests would occur. This spring is no different.

Here are some facts from the Ohio Department of Education regarding the spring testing:

• Due to technology and test security requirements, there is no option to remotely administer state tests.

• Districts should prioritize safety while putting forth a good-faith effort to communicate with parents and students about the importance of assessments and the requirement to conduct testing on-site.

• Testing windows have been extended with many more options for districts to choose from. 

• No student should be retained for not meeting the promotion score or reading subscore on Ohio’s State Test for grade 3 English language arts unless the child’s principal and reading teacher decide otherwise. Meaning, the Third Grade Reading Guarantee has been changed for the 2020-2021 school year. 

• Federal and state laws require all districts and schools to test all students in specific grades and courses. There is no law that allows a parent or student to opt out of state testing, and there is no state test opt-out procedure or form. That being said, a parent can withdraw a child from participation in certain state tests, but there may be consequences for the student, the student’s teacher, and the school and district.

  • Districts and schools receive no credit when a student doesn’t participate in state testing. This can negatively impact a district’s state A-F report card grades.

  • Districts and schools cannot count students who do not take all required state tests in their average daily membership (ADM) for state funding.

  • Teachers will not have access to advanced diagnostic information from state tests, such as student growth projections, to help inform instruction.

  • A lack of state test scores can affect a student’s ability to graduate high school.

While I understand why a parent would not want to subject their child to a standardized assessment when the child’s learning has been significantly impacted this year, and mental health is a very serious concern for our kids, the school psychologist in me is telling you to let them take the test. Here is the thing, anxiety over these tests stems from the pressure that children feel to pass the test. That pressure comes from home and school. Take away the pressure and reassure your child that you could care less about their score. And when those scores do come home, put very little stock into what is on that paper. All our children have suffered one way or another this year and their educational progression has likely been impacted.  Be sympathetic to their situation. Listen and reaffirm their feelings. But I urge you not to remove this speedbump because when we are uncomfortable, but push on, we build character and resiliency. Our kids need to be resilient because there will be many moments in their lives when they will want to turn away from what makes them uncomfortable but doing so will stifle their personal growth.

Authored by Danielle Randolph, M.Ed., Ed.S., Special Education Advocate at Abdnour Weiker, LLP

Questions? Call us. 614-745-2001

Can I Leave Work to Attend an IEP Meeting?

FMLA LEAVE MAY BE AVAILABLE TO PARENTS TO ATTEND IEP MEETINGS 

On August 8, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (“the DOL”) issued guidance on whether an employee may take protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to attend a meeting to discuss the Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) of the employee’s son or daughter. U.S. Dept. of Labor, WHD, FMLA 2019-2-A(August 8, 2019). 

1. FMLA Leave

As a starting point, FMLA provides that an employee eligible for FMLA may take up to 12 weeks of job-protected, unpaid FMLA leave per year “to care for the spouse, son,daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.” 29 U.S.C. §2612(a)(1)(C); see also 29 U.S.C. §2611(11); 29 C.F.R. §825.112–.115.

2. IDEA and Related Services

Alternatively, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) requires public schools to develop an IEP for astudent who receives special education and related services, with input from the child, the child’s parents, teachers, school administrators, and related services personnel. Under IDEA, “related services” may include such services as audiology services, counseling services, medical services, physical therapy, psychological services, speech-language pathology services, rehabilitation counseling services, among others.

3. DOL Conclusion

Considering both statutes, the DOL instructed that attendance at IEP meetings does qualify FMLA-covered leave so long as the employee’s son or daughter suffers from a “serious health condition” as defined in the law. FMLA defines a “serious health condition” as an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves inpatient care or continuing treatment by a healthcare provider. Many students receive “continuing treatment” by a healthcare provider pursuant to their IEP. 

4. FMLA Medical Certification

An employer may require the parent to provide a medical certification in order to verify the existence of the child’s serious health condition. This certification is a standard FMLA form issued by a health care provider, further supporting the request for leave. This certification would verify that the child’s condition qualifies as a “serious health condition” under FMLA. 

5. Parents Input is “Essential”

In issuing the guidance, the DOL recognized that the parents in question attend IEP meetings in order to “help make medical decisions concerning their children’s medically-prescribed speech, physical, and occupational therapy, to discuss their children’s wellbeing and progress with the providers of such services, and to ensure that their children’s schoolenvironment was suitable to their medical, social, and academic needs.” The DOL also instructed that, a parents’ attendance at IEP meetings is often “essential to [the parent’s] ability toprovide appropriate physical or psychological care” to theirchildren, further justifying the application of FMLA protected leave for IEP meetings. 

6. Intermittent Leave 

Under FMLA, an employee may use the leave intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule when medically necessary because of a family member’s serious health condition. 29 U.S.C. §2612(b)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 825.202. This means that the employee may apply the FMLA leave as-needed, for portions of a workday, rather than in a scheduled days or in continuous days. Intermittent leave is the type of leave most parents would need to request and use for IEP meetings. 

Finally, the DOL instructed that the child’s doctor does not need to be present at IEP meetings in order for the leave to qualify under FMLA. The conclusion provided by the DOL alsoapplies to any special education meetings held pursuant to IDEA. 

This article was authored by education and employment attorney, Mark A. Weiker. 

Questions? Call us: 614-745-2001

E+R=O: A Special Education Mindset

E + R = O: A Special Education Mindset

Fighting for an individualized and appropriate education

Let’s imagine you are not receiving progress reports on your child’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP). You have that parental instinct that something isn’t right. How do you stand up to district administrators, who are specifically trained in the field of education? Do you “let it go” and just hope everything works out? No! 

Urban Meyer led The Ohio State University Football Team to a National Title using this simple equation, E + R = O. The equation comes from the book Above the Line, coauthored by Meyer and Wayne Coffey. (Highly Recommended by #teamAW!) The book is not a focus on football, but on mindset and taking action. Which is what we need to do when advocating for our kids. Special Education is full of unexpected, emotional, and confusing events. From initial diagnosis to having a gut feeling that your child is not receiving the correct services to meet their individual needs. Now what?

It begins with a simple, powerful equation that affects everything we do.

EVENT: There are often unexpected, emotional, & confusing events

RESPONSE: Advocating for your child, by choosing your response

OUTCOME: Control of your child’s education is the outcome

The R factor is the most important. R is your response to the event that occurred at school, or your response to the feeling that your child is not thriving. Here are a few appropriate responses in the realm of Special Education:

1. Do your homework and research everything you can before walking into any meeting;

2. Understand the acronyms, and that an ETR and IEP can come down to semantics but have major consequences;

3. Be ready to justify what you are fighting for;

4. Be your child’s best advocate; sometimes you need help understanding, interpreting, and navigating the special education process. Whether it is you or you combined with an advocate for your child, make your response! 

In special education, the response can change the outcome of your child’s educational future. Advocate for your child. If you are told no, think of another response to control the outcome. 

Questions? Call us: 614-745-2001. We have the Special Education team to support you.

Applying for Grad School? What you need to disclose.

When applying to graduate programs, especially law school, many applications require that all applicants disclose any criminal or academic misconduct. But it can be tricky to know what you do and do not need to disclose.

One simple answer is to read any disclosure questions carefully. While the disclosure questions can be lengthy, it is very important to read the entire question for two reasons: (1) To make sure that you do not mistakenly withhold any information and (2) To know specifically what you do and do not need to disclose.

Not all schools are the same and it is very possible that some schools require different information that other schools. Failing to disclose required information can result in having to take extra application steps, not being accepted to the school, or having your acceptance revoked. Ensuring that you are disclosing all relevant information can help ensure an easier application process. Reading the disclosure question thoroughly will help guarantee that you disclosed all requested information.

Tips to answering application disclosure questions:

1. Read the question thoroughly

2. WHEN IN DOUBT, DISCLOSE

3. Know your criminal and academic history

Honesty is the best policy when it comes to disclosures on applications. If you are in doubt about whether to disclose a piece of information or not, it is always better to be honest and disclose rather than trying to hide the information. You also have the option of contacting the school and asking if a piece of information needs to be disclosed or not. It is important to know the  status of any criminal or academic misconduct you may have because in some cases if the charge was dismissed or expunged, you may not be required to disclose the misconduct. It will be stated in the disclosure question whether dismissed or expunged misconduct must be disclosed or not.

While some schools may require you to disclose minor traffic infractions, such as speeding, it is unlikely that a simple speeding ticket or other minor traffic violation will negatively affect your admissions odds. However, failing to disclose may negatively affect your admissions chance!

In short, make sure to read the disclosure questions carefully to find out exactly what must be disclosed, and if you are still on the fence about whether to disclose or not, always disclose.

Questions? Call us! 614.745.2001

Article written by Avery Young, 2L at Capital University Law School and Law Clerk for Abdnour Weiker, LLP

Straight From A Student's Mouth: My experience defending a charge of cheating.

Straight from a student's mouth:

A college student found herself charged with academic misconduct (a.k.a. cheating). Here's her story.

"Last semester, I was in a Marketing class required to pursue my Human Resources degree in the Fisher College of Business at Ohio State. It was not the most difficult class, nor the most interesting. Each week, we had weekly warm ups and quizzes on chapters from the text. These assignments were issued via Pearson, an online education service that students at Ohio State used to do online work. For some classes, including Marketing, Pearson made up the questions based on the textbook. These questions stayed the same every semester, and students often made quizlets (an online study tool, comparative to online flashcards) to study from. These quizlets included the quiz question and the answer, and were public. If you searched the question, the answer would come up online. These online assignments were open notes; therefore, we were allowed to use our computers and resources.

GroupMe is an app that allows for large groups to communicate without the annoyance that large groups texts bring - we all know those. A GroupMe was created for Marketing for questions that may arise during the class; when are the exams, what do they cover, etc. Soon, people began posting the answers to the quizzes and warm ups, because everyone knew we all looked them up and this saved time. One week, I posted a warm up and quiz because I felt bad I never posted anything. No one really checked the GroupMe except for the answers to the quizzes and warm ups, so no one noticed 83 people had joined it. People kept adding other people, and one girl decided to turn in the GroupMe group at the end of the semester.This case was brought to the Committee of Academic Misconduct (COAM). Almost an entire semester later, COAM gave out punishments. Everyone who had been in the GroupMe but not posted any warm ups or quizzes were put on academic probation and had to retake the class. Everyone who had posted also was put on academic probation, had to retake the class, and was suspended for two semesters. So I was suspended for two entire semesters for posting one warm up and one quiz within fifteen minutes of each other all because I had felt bad I never posted. I would have finished the class with an 88.9%.As an HR major, I pride myself on ethics. I am involved in other activities outside of school, including a sorority, president of another organization, and have had multiple internships not only in the summers, but part time while being a full time student. Therefore, it was extremely shocking and upsetting that I, a student who gives my all in the Fisher College of Business and balances my time with things that will strengthen me, got suspended. I was due to graduate this Spring, in 2018. I would no longer be able to graduate on time. Telling my family, friends, and peers was not only hard, it was embarrassing.The suspension was to be the Spring 2018 semester and Summer 2018. I would then finish my classes fall 2018, and graduate. However, since I was a Human Resources major, and the classes I needed to take to get my degree were only offered in the Spring, my suspension essentially became three semesters since I would need to stay that extra spring semester. I hired AW, and my attorney wrote a strong appeal letter that allowed my suspension to be summer and the next fall (2019), so I could finish my classes this spring, and just get my degree a year later in Spring 2019. This allowed me to work or do whatever I would like for a year, rather than having to take a break and then go back to school.As hard and challenging as my situation was, and still is, it brought about some good things. Although it was difficult to remain positive throughout this experience, I knew if I held my head high things would workout, and they did. I have a great job in the field I want to pursue, and am trying to make the best of the situation.If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. I try to remember the old saying, 'When one door closes, another door opens.' I am now motivated and determined again."   

Changing Student Records

Parents and Students Have a Right to Request Amendment or Removal of an Education Record

Students ages 18+ and parents of students under age 18 have a right under federal law to request removal or amendment of inaccurate files contained in the student’s education record. The right exists under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) and it applies to students of all ages (pre-school to Ph.D.) who attend or attended schools that receive federal funding. This includes all public schools and many private schools.

Initial Request to Amend of Remove an Education Record 

If a parent or student believes an education record (including any disciplinary record or special education record) contains information that is inaccurate, misleading, or in violation of the student’s privacy, they must start by requesting that the school remove or amend the record. 34 C.F.R. § 99.20. Although not required, it is best to make the initial request in writing.

Under FERPA, the school must then decide, within a reasonable time, whether or not to amend the record as requested. If it complies with the request, the process ends.

If the school decides not to amend or remove the record as requested, it must notify the parent or student of its decision and also inform the parent or student that they have a right to a hearing on the matter. Id.

Required Hearing and Applicable Rules 

A school must provide a parent or student, on request, a hearing to challenge the content of the student’s education records on the grounds listed above. 34 C.F.R. § 99.21. The hearing must be held within a reasonable time following the request. The school must give the parent or student notice of the date, time, and place, reasonably in advance of the hearing. 34 C.F.R. § 99.22.

The hearing may be conducted by any person, including any school official, who does not have a direct interest in the outcome of the hearing. The school must give the parent or student a full and fair opportunity to present evidence relevant to the request for amendment or removal. The parent or student may be represented by an attorney at their own expense.

Following the hearing, the school must deliver its decision in writing within a reasonable period of time. The decision must be based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing and must include a summary of the evidence and the reasons for the decision.

Good Outcome: Written Notice That the File Will be Amended 

If, as a result of the hearing, the school decides that the information is inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the privacy rights of the student, it must: (1) amend the record accordingly; and (2) inform the parent or student of the amendment in writing. 34 C.F.R. § 99.21.

Bad Outcome: Right of Parent or Student to Place a Statement in the Record 

If, as a result of the hearing, the school decides that the information in the record is not inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the student’s privacy, it must inform the parent or student that they may place a statement in the record commenting on the contested information or indicating why they disagree with the decision of the school, or both. Id.

If the parent or student provides a statement and the school places it in the student’s record, the school must: (1) maintain the statement with the contested part of the record for as long as the record itself is maintained; and (2) disclose the statement whenever it discloses the portion of the record to which the statement relates. Id.

What to Do When a School Refuses to Follow the Process

A parent of a student may file a written complaint with the Family Policy Compliance Office of the U.S. Department of Education regarding any alleged violation of FERPA. The Complaint form is available at http://familypolicy.ed.gov/complaint-form.

Questions? Call us! 614-745-2001

Educators & Social Media Interactions

Many of you have heard about the teacher fired for her Twitter response to a student's  misspelling of the word tomorrow. See: http://abc6onyourside.com/news/nation-world/experts-defend-school-staffer-fired-after-correcting-students-spelling-on-twitter

While the teacher's response in the article certainly appeared to be more playful than harassing, it does highlight the inherent problem facing educators interacting with students on social media. The first rule and best rule to follow is that educators should not interact with students via social media, text message or alternative messenger apps such as SnapChat or Kik. When the school itself authorizes or instructs its employees to use these platforms to inform students and parents, extreme caution should be exercised.

The real challenge is that social media and messenger platforms are inherently informal. Educators can be lured into making seemingly humorous comments which others (namely parents) would consider rude or disrespectful. This means that posts originally intended to be playful (like the one in the article) are ultimately viewed as harassing. Teachers can easily forget that, notwithstanding the apparent equivalent "user" status they have with students online, they remain in a position of power over students in the real world. This means that comments from a teacher or educator carry more weight than comments made by peers, and can easily be considered an abuse of power. This is often how educators and schools using social media end up in awkward positions.

In addition to discipline or termination of employment, educators also risk license suspension or revocation for improper communications made on social media or by text. Based on recent license suspensions and revocations, it appears that the Ohio Department of Education is taking a tough stance on all questionable or informal electronic communications between students and teachers. For these reasons, it is sage advice for all educators to avoid social media or texting communications with students altogether if possible. If the employer-school authorizes or instructs teachers to use these platforms to communicate with students and/or parents, all communications should be about school business with no exceptions. And never get lured into making a joke at a student's expense.

Remember: in addition to representing students and parents, we counsel teachers and administrators through employment related matters in order to keep quality educators in schools. 

Questions? Call us! 614-745-2001

Starting Point: ADHD

School-aged children with ADHD

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurological disorder affecting between 4-12 % of school aged children. It is a deficiency of a specific neurotransmitter called norepinephrine. The ADHD brain matures at a different rate than a typical brain, resulting in a delay of 3-5 years of the frontal cortex area, and a faster than typical motor cortex. Among other things, the frontal cortex is responsible for suppressing inappropriate actions and thoughts, focusing attention, short term memory and the ability to work for rewards. Two thirds of children with ADHD have at least one other co-existing condition such as a learning disability, anxiety, depression, oppositional defiant Disorder, or others. Common symptoms of ADHD are inattention, impulsivity, poor social skills, and poor concentration.

Many children with ADHD are not appropriately evaluated for a disability or accommodations in school. According to the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), ten percent of OCR complaints in the last 5 years have dealt with allegations of discrimination against students with ADHD. Because of this, in July 2016 OCR issued a guidance document for students with ADHD.

The guidance clarifies:

• when a student may be eligible for special education or related services;

• makes clear that even students who perform well academically may have a disability if also substantially limited in major life activities such as such as reading, learning, writing and thinking; and

• reminds schools to provide parents with information regarding due process and how to appeal a decision involving identification, evaluation, or educational placement of students with disabilities.

This guide is available on the Office for Civil Rights’ website at http://www.ed.gov/ocr.

Questions? Call us! 614.745.2001

School Dress Codes

Public schools in Ohio have a substantial amount of discretion in implementing dress codes in order to maintain a safe learning environment for students. However, this discretion is not unlimited. Courts may consider dress code policies overbroad if the restrictions imposed on students are not necessary to prevent a substantial disruption or not related to the promotion of health and safety.

When implementing dress code policies, public boards of education must also consider students’ rights to free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court held in 1969 that student speech can be regulated if a school proves it “materially and substantially interfere[s]” in school operations.

Q: Can a public school require students to cut their hair? 

A: In most cases, yes. So long as the school’s policy governing length of hair is necessary for the government of schools and related to some educational purpose, the policy will usually be upheld by the courts. On the federal level, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Ohio) has held that hair length restrictions do not typically infringe on student constitutional rights under the First Amendment (regarding freedom of speech and expression). However, some Ohio courts, including the Ohio Supreme Court, have overturned hair length restrictions that were considered arbitrary or unreasonable.

Q: Can a public school restrict the clothing that students wear? 

A: Yes. Schools are given great latitude in implementing policies governing student clothing. Schools may implement dress codes in order to limit disruptions on campus. Courts have upheld dress codes prohibiting vulgar writing, earrings, body piercings, sagging pants, torn clothing, bare midriffs and other sexually suggestive clothing. Policies that attempt to limit students from wearing gang-related or violence-based clothing are usually upheld where the schools can show the potential for disruption is real.

Q: Are there limits on what clothing public schools can ban? 

A: Yes. As indicated above, schools must be able to show that the risk of disruption is real in order to enforce a dress code prohibition. Students also have freedom of expression and freedom of religion rights under the First Amendment, although schools may weigh these rights against the potential for disruption in school. By way of example, in a 2007 case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a ban on wearing the confederate flag was appropriate where the school had demonstrated that racial tensions existed in the school.

Alternatively, in 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania held in favor of students who challenged a school district’s policy banning “I heart boobies” bracelets that the students wore in support of breast cancer awareness. The court held that the school district did not prove that the bracelets were disruptive.

Q: Can a public school require student uniforms? 

A: Yes. Ohio has adopted a statute indicating that schools may require a school uniform to be worn by the students attending one or more district schools, so long as the policy promotes a safe and healthy school setting and enhances the educational environment. The policy must be included in the school’s general code of conduct or discipline policy, be posted in a central location and be made available upon request.

Q: Are there steps that a public school must take to adopt a school uniform? 

A: Yes. The board of education must provide six months notice in advance of requiring uniforms and afford “ample opportunity” for principal, staff, and parents to offer suggestions and comments on the proposed uniforms. The board of education must also include a procedure to assist parents of economically disadvantaged students to obtain uniforms, which may include using school district funds or funds from other sources to provide this assistance.

Q: Can students be disciplined for violations of grooming, dress code or uniform violations? 

A: Yes, so long as the school has adopted a policy that is sufficiently clear on the issue of grooming (e.g. hair length), prohibited clothing or uniforms. Students must always be placed “on notice” in regards to the policies in which they are disciplined.

The Intersection of Special Education & Social Security Eligibility

Meet Emmy (pictured). She is our Special Education Advocate. 

You can read more about her here: Emily Haynes 

Social Security Eligibility As a parent with a child receiving Social Security benefits, you are most likely aware that to be eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), your child has “a physical or mental condition or a combination of conditions that results in “marked and severe functional limitations. This means that the condition(s) must very seriously limit your child’s activities.” Examples include: HIV infection; Total blindness; Total deafness; Cerebral palsy; Down syndrome; Muscular dystrophy; Severe intellectual disability (child age 7 or older); Low Birth weight

Social Security Benefits In addition to Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a child with disabilities as defined by the Social Security Administration may also be eligible for: Rehabilitation and training if older that age 15, Medicare/Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Special Education In addition to SSI, you may also be eligible for special education for your child. All children have the right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Children with disabilities may need to be taught in a different way than typical children, and may not be able access that free and appropriate public education without support. There are two main Acts that protect children with disabilities: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Section 504.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Generally The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) may protect your child. IDEA provides federal assistance to State and local education agencies to guarantee special education and related services to eligible children with disabilities, ages 3-21. The goal of IDEA is to serve children with disabilities by meeting their “unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.”

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Eligibility An important part of the IDEA called Child Find requires schools to identify, locate and evaluate all children with disabilities, regardless of their situations, who have significant, individual needs and require intensive interventions through special education and related services.

In other words, your child must be found to meet all three factors:1. Have a disabling condition2. Have an adverse effect on education performance3. Need for special education

IDEA has 13 categories, and children must be identified in one of them to be eligible. These are: Autism, Blindness, Deafness, Emotional Disturbance, Hearing Impairment, Intellectual Disability, Multiple Disabilities, Orthopedic Impairment, Other Health Impaired, Specific Learning Disability, Speech or Language Impairment, Traumatic Brain Injury, Visual Impairment

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Benefits Parents can request that their child be evaluated, and schools must respond appropriately. Reevaluation of the child occurs every three years, and a knowledgeable team must conduct both the initial evaluation and all subsequent evaluations. Parents have the right to request an Independent Education Evaluation at public expense one time for every evaluation.

Once children have been identified, the schools are required to determine if they are eligible for special education services, and if they are, to provide those services in an appropriate manner. This plan is called an Individualized Education Program (IEP), and parents are valuable and contributing members of the IEP team. IEPs outline the strengths and weaknesses of the child, and set out goals for the child to work toward with specific instruction and accommodations. Parents must be updated at regular intervals with actual data showing progress towards those goals. Finally, IDEA provides important protections children with disabilities in the area of discipline, if the reason for the disruptive behavior is related to their disability.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Protections If you believe your child needs special education, or is receiving services but is not progressing, your IEP and/or Evaluation may not be adequate.

In 2015, the Federal government determined that Ohio “Needs Assistance” because of low scores in special education. Specifically, our percentage of children with disabilities who drop out of high school is dangerously low: 22%. Only 47% of children with disabilities graduate with a regular diploma. Both these measures suggest that special education in Ohio is not meeting the requirement to provide those children with a free and appropriate public education.

You have options under IDEA to raise questions, disagree with schools, and to ensure that your child’s individual needs are being met. These include notice, consent, available complaint procedures, mediation, and due process.

Section 504: Generally IDEA provides specialized special education to children with disabilities, but not all children are adversely affected by their disability. Section 504 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability.

Section 504: Eligibility A similar Child Find is found in Section 504. It requires schools to evaluate any student “who, because of a handicap, needs or is believed to need special education and related services.” That handicap or impairment must substantially limit a major life activity, have a record of such impairment or be regarded as having such impairment. Major life activities include: Caring for one's self, Performing manual tasks, Walking, Seeing, Hearing, Speaking, Breathing, Learning, Working. Eating, Sleeping, Standing, Lifting, Bending, Reading, Concentrating, Thinking, Communicating, and finally, “major bodily functions” that are major life activities.

Section 504: Benefits Section 504 generally provides accommodations to children with disabilities. For example, a child with a severe peanut allergy would be protected under a 504 plan, as would a child with ADHD who needs movement breaks during testing. Because 504 targets nondiscrimination, a 504 plan delineates reasonable accommodations and services so that education, nonacademic and extracurricular services are provided with non-disabled students to the maximum extent appropriate for the child with the disability. These activities may include counseling, athletics, transportation, health services, and special interests groups or clubs.

Section 504: Protections The Office of Civil Rights regulates a 504 plan. Procedures available to parents are notice, grievance procedures and due process hearings. Discipline of children under a 504 is also protected, although not to the same extent of children under IEPs .

Questions? Call us! 614.745.2001