Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,160
- Reaction score
- 7
Palo Alto Daily News
Stanford Law School students getting a hands-on lesson in education law won one legal battle this week when a U.S. District Court judge ruled in their favor on a case in which they are participating.
The judge denied a defense motion to dismiss the case, J.C. et al. versus the California School for the Deaf (CSD) in Fremont; the California Department of Education, which runs the school; and the Fremont Unified School District, where a 13-year-old girl referred to in court documents as "J.C." is being educated. In addition to being deaf, J.C. has autism and a cognitive disability.
"We are fighting against the systematic exclusion of these kids from the California School for the Deaf," said Bill Koskie, head of Stanford Law School's Youth and Education Law Project (YELP). "This is a pattern with regards to other kids who have multiple disabilities."
The Fremont Unified School District was named because they have not been able to address J.C.'s needs, Koskie said.
Stanford law students have done legal and other research in the case, Koskie said. He declined to disclose what other work they have been doing, citing concerns about undermining their legal strategy. YELP is working with the law firm Bingham McCutchen on the case. Bingham McCutchen is doing the work on the case pro bono.
"This is a nice collaboration between Stanford (YELP) and a private law firm," said Bill Abrams, a partner with Bingham McCutchen and a member of the Stanford Law School faculty.
"She can't get the appropriate education she needs in Fremont, so she is entitled to go to the California School for the Deaf. What we are seeking is that the state provide services to our client, which she is entitled to, that allow her to be educated in her primary mode of communication, which is sign language," Abrams said.
The suit alleges that J.C. was not taught at CSD in some instances, she was excluded from school activities such as physical education and was denied a free appropriate public education in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). It also alleges other protections were violated, including the Americans with Disabilities Act. The judge ordered the plaintiffs and defendants in late September to go to mediation. Mediation is scheduled for December.
"What she has the right to have happen is go to the California School for the Deaf and for them to provide her all of the services (she needs)," Abrams said.
California Department of Education officials said they do not think the judge's ruling impacts their case. The declined to comment further, because the matter is in litigation.
According to the judge's ruling, the defendants claimed J.C. was never properly admitted to CSD when she was "inadvertently promoted to kindergarten after participating in CSD's day care program." The defense also argued they did not discriminate against her, and that where she was placed for school was based on her disabilities.
The judge, however, ruled that the plaintiffs proved J.C. is qualified to attend CSD for several reasons, including a 1999 CSD determination that she is eligible for special education benefits at the school.
"We are prepared to try the case," Abrams said. "If mediation does not result in a settlement, we asked for an expedited schedule to go to trial sometime in the spring to get this resolved."
Stanford Law School students getting a hands-on lesson in education law won one legal battle this week when a U.S. District Court judge ruled in their favor on a case in which they are participating.
The judge denied a defense motion to dismiss the case, J.C. et al. versus the California School for the Deaf (CSD) in Fremont; the California Department of Education, which runs the school; and the Fremont Unified School District, where a 13-year-old girl referred to in court documents as "J.C." is being educated. In addition to being deaf, J.C. has autism and a cognitive disability.
"We are fighting against the systematic exclusion of these kids from the California School for the Deaf," said Bill Koskie, head of Stanford Law School's Youth and Education Law Project (YELP). "This is a pattern with regards to other kids who have multiple disabilities."
The Fremont Unified School District was named because they have not been able to address J.C.'s needs, Koskie said.
Stanford law students have done legal and other research in the case, Koskie said. He declined to disclose what other work they have been doing, citing concerns about undermining their legal strategy. YELP is working with the law firm Bingham McCutchen on the case. Bingham McCutchen is doing the work on the case pro bono.
"This is a nice collaboration between Stanford (YELP) and a private law firm," said Bill Abrams, a partner with Bingham McCutchen and a member of the Stanford Law School faculty.
"She can't get the appropriate education she needs in Fremont, so she is entitled to go to the California School for the Deaf. What we are seeking is that the state provide services to our client, which she is entitled to, that allow her to be educated in her primary mode of communication, which is sign language," Abrams said.
The suit alleges that J.C. was not taught at CSD in some instances, she was excluded from school activities such as physical education and was denied a free appropriate public education in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA). It also alleges other protections were violated, including the Americans with Disabilities Act. The judge ordered the plaintiffs and defendants in late September to go to mediation. Mediation is scheduled for December.
"What she has the right to have happen is go to the California School for the Deaf and for them to provide her all of the services (she needs)," Abrams said.
California Department of Education officials said they do not think the judge's ruling impacts their case. The declined to comment further, because the matter is in litigation.
According to the judge's ruling, the defendants claimed J.C. was never properly admitted to CSD when she was "inadvertently promoted to kindergarten after participating in CSD's day care program." The defense also argued they did not discriminate against her, and that where she was placed for school was based on her disabilities.
The judge, however, ruled that the plaintiffs proved J.C. is qualified to attend CSD for several reasons, including a 1999 CSD determination that she is eligible for special education benefits at the school.
"We are prepared to try the case," Abrams said. "If mediation does not result in a settlement, we asked for an expedited schedule to go to trial sometime in the spring to get this resolved."