Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
Alexandrea Kelts
Julia McMahon
Supreme Court Cases
Dr. Azar Hadadian
Spring 2013
1
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
Abstract
In the topic of Law there are many gray areas. It is sometimes difficult to
dissect a court case and fully understand the rulings. This paper focuses 8 different
court cases in special education featuring Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEIA). Each case provides background information on the case,
the ruling, and personal opinions of the authors.
2
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
Taylor v. Altoona Area School Dist., 737 F.Supp.2d 474 (W.D. Pa. 2010)
This situation resulted in a court hearing when a child passes away do to an
asthma attack. The asthma attack happened during a school function. The child’s
name was Devin Taylor. Soyna Taylor, Devin’s mother, filed suit against Devin’s
school district and his third grade teacher. The court case is related to Individuals
with Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEIA) and Section 504.
Upon the hearing the court recognized the claims of Section 504. The courts
did not recognize the claim of IDEIA. The courts were unable to reward Taylor with
any monetary amounts in relation to the death of Devin. Taylor was able to continue
her claims about Section 504 because the schools district’s Service Plan for Devin
was not up to par. The court also allowed Taylor to take Devin’s teacher to court,
because he did not follow the Service Plan as expected.
Taylor was absolutely correct in all of her claims. Section 504 and IDEIA, are
in place to protect children with all types of disabilities. Each child, no matter their
ability, is entitled to a Free and Appropriate Education. Schools should ensure
children feel safe and that parents are comfortable sending their children to school
3
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
each day. It is a school’s responsibility to provide students with FAPE. This includes
providing all students with any needs deemed necessary.
4
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
Costello v. Mitchell Public School Dist 79., 266 F.3d 916 (8th Cir. 2001)
At Morrill Elementary School (located in Nebraska), Sadonya Costello was a special
education student. Sadonya was placed in special education for the first four years
at Morrill. As she entered fifth grade, the special education services were stopped.
According the Nebraska law, Costello did not qualify for more special education
services. The law determined that her disability was not sufficient. In sixth grade, a
group of professionals (administration, general education teachers, and the school
nurse), at Sadonya’s school determined that she did in fact have a disability. The
group was a multidisciplinary team. They had determined that Sadonya’s disability
fell under the “other health impairments” category. The group decided that Sadonya
would require more testing. Costello’s family physician did not agree with this
finding, which is also a requirement under Nebraska law. Sadonya transferred to a
new school, Mitchell, for seventh grade. Mitchell did not place Sadonya in special
education. Sadonya seemed to be doing well at her new school. The school saw no
reason to provide her with special education services. As the year progressed,
Costello’s grades began to drop and she was failing band class. Sadonya’s parent
knew that she was not getting services from special education. As they became more
worried, permission was granted for Sadonya’s physician to send information
regarding her health ed to the school. The information sent by the physician was
expired. Also, it did provide details to her status and academic abilities.
Sadonya began having problems with the band teacher. He used derogatory
language to her such as “stupid” and “retarded”. He called her these names in the
presence of her peers. There is also report of an incident where the band teacher
5
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
threw a book at Sadonya. The book hit her in the head. The teacher also told
Sadonya that she was “too stupid” to play in the band. When the band teacher was
asked about the incident, he did not deny it happening. Mitchell administration held
a meeting to discuss Sadonya’s school experience and failing grades. Sadonya was
made to sign a document stating that she would seek academic help when needed.
Regardless of the document, Sadonya’s grades continued to drop. She also became
withdrawn at school. She pulled away from her peers and social situations. Sadonya
still did not receive special education services. A mental health professional, Dr.
Scanlan expressed his concerns about Sadonya in a letter. He stated that she would
benefit by being home schooled. Sadonya began having suicidal thoughts and
tendencies.
Mr. and Mrs. Costello next step was to go to court. They filed suit for two
violations of Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Another suit was filed for
violations of the IDEIA and Section 504. One more suit was filed for Sadonya’s
emotional distress inflicted by the band teacher. The court decided that Sadonya’s
parents did not express a genuine concern that Sadonya had a legitimate disability.
Her parents felt that the school did not follow IDEIA because Sadonya did not
receive services for her disability. The school also did not notify Sadonya’s parents
when the special education services were stopped. Mitchell was responsible for
testing and special education place in relation to her current academic level.
Mitchell did not have proof of completing either of these tasks. IDEIA states that the
school is responsible for notifying the parents when and if the school refuses to
6
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
provide services. Mitchell did not follow through with this law. The Costello’s won
their suit regarding IDEIA.
The courts made the correct decision. Mitchell should have tested Sadonya to
determine her current academic ability. Sadonya’s parents did not provide evidence
of her disability. The school failed to notify the Costello’s that Sadonya was not
receiving special education services. The band teacher should not have belittled
Sadonya. He should have been reprimanded and faced serious consequences.
7
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
Ford v. Long Beach Unified School Dist., 291 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2002)
This case is related to IDEIA. The suit was filed by Rodney Ford, Amanda
Ford’s father. When tested by Long Beach School Corporation, Amanda was deemed
“unsuited” for services provided by the special education department.
According the Ford’s parents, she suffered from severe anxiety. The anxiety
negatively affects her academic performance. Ford’s IEP states that she had trouble
recalling facts and figures and focus on her schoolwork while in class. These
attributes caused Ford’s grades and test scores to drop. Ford’s IEP recommended
that she be placed in a residential facility. The facility specialized in treating
individuals that suffered from severe anxiety. Ford did well living at the facility.
Eventually the facility suggested that she go home to Long Beach. At the following
IEP conference, the team determined that Ford would live at home and receive
special education services there. The team retracted their decision before the
services could start. Once again the school district recommended that Ford be
placed into a residential program. Rodney Ford refused the suggestion. Mr. Ford
filed suit. The court ruled that the IEP team and school district must follow the first
ruling (Ford could stay home and receive services). The courts also ruled that the
Ford’s be reimbursed monetarily.
A few years later, Rodney tried to enroll his daughter in the local high school.
The school denied her enrollment. The school wished ford to stay home and
continue receiving services from the school. Rodney filed a new suit against the
school. The court ruled that Ford be allowed to attend the high school. The Ford’s
were not reimbursed for this case.
8
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
The court ruling was appropriate. The first IEP meeting determined what
Ford’s placement should be. The decision should have been final, and no other
decision should have been made. When an IEP team makes a decision regarding a
student, the decision should be made with best intentions.
9
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
West Chester Area School District v. Bruce C., 194 F.supp.2d 417 (E.D.Pa. 2002)
This case was filed under IDEIA. Chad is fourteen-year-old child. Chad was
identified as having Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). Chad underwent testing in the
forth grade. The tests concluded that Chad’s intellectual skills are above average and
he showed significant symptoms of ADD. Chad showed weaknesses in
concentration, auditory memory, and organizational skills. The school district
refused to provide special education services despite the test results. Chad was
unable to receive services from Section 504 and IDEIA. The school did provide Chad
with a Pupil Education Program. This program is far less professional, formal, and
cannot be enforced by the law. Chad’s parents feared that Chad was not receiving
the best possible services from the school. His parents requested that the school
district pay an Independent Educational Evaluation. The school district refused to
pay for the evaluation. Chad’s parents then filed suit.
The courts ruled that Chad was able to receive services from Section 504. A
few months later, the courts ruled hat Chad was eligible to receive services under
IDEIA. The school district was ordered to produce an Individual Educational Plan
(IEP) for Chad. The school district repealed the courts decision. The repeal changed
the Hearing Officer’s previous decision. Ultimately the court ruled that Chad was in
fact qualified for IDEIA. The school district had to prepare an IEP for Chad.
I agree with the court’s decision. Chad has been identified with ADD. ADD is a
disability recognized by IDEIA. Without the special education services, Chad may
have struggled in school. The services ensure that Chad receives an education best
suited for his needs.
10
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
Kingsmore ex. Rel. Lutz v. District of Columbia, 466 F.3d 118
In the case, Kingsmore ec. Rel Lutz vs. The District of Columbia, IDEIA was violated.
Laura Kingsmore and her mildly disabled daughter, Hannah Lutz, moved to the
District of Columbia (DCPS). There Lutz had an Individualized Education Plan in
place written by DCPS.
Kingsmore disapproved of the IEP and called upon a hearing to test the
accuracy of the IEP. At the hearing the Official stated that the IEP did not violate
IDEA and was accurate. Kingsmore still was not satisfied and appealed to the circuit
court. While appealing to the court, she realized that the transcripts from the former
hearing where incomplete. The court ruled that this was not supportive of IDEA and
stated that because the transcripts where incomplete and Kingsmore was denied
the right to appeal Lutz not given a free appropriate public education. Therefore
they where violating her rights.
Firstly, I believe DCPS should have reviewed the IEP with Kingsmore when
she disagreed with the document before the case grew as large as it did because it
went against IDEIA. In IDEIA the parents have the final say and right to the IEP at
any time. They have to consent everything that their child does individually. Many
parents know what their children are capable of and should play a big role in their
education.
11
Supreme Court Cases
2001)
Kelts, McMahon
Doe v. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, 9 fed. Apx. 453 (6th Cir.
It has been acclaimed that Michael Doe (12 years old), the son of Mr. and Mrs.
Bill Doe, is learning disabled and emotionally disturbed. His parents have sent him
to Grove School (a private school) for his education up until now. They decided on
their own with no outside opinion what was best for their children, to send him to
another private school. Within a year of Michael going to the Grove school his multidisciplinary team evaluated him. This team placed him in a public school where they
felt Michael could get the best education. Michael’s parents requested that his
private school get paid by the state.
The court stated that Mr. and Mrs. Bill Doe had been informed of free centers
for children with disabilities therefore did not have to send the child to a private
school. Michael’s parents also never expressed to anyone that Michael was moving
to another school therefore the court ruled that it was IDEA was not obligated to pay
for this child’s private school tuition.
I believe that the parents where in the wrong to move the child to
another school without consulting his educators who are professionals because they
will lose their rights to related services. Mr. and Mrs. Doe should not have sent the
child to another school before they knew if the private school was covered in IDEIA.
Michael deserves an education that best fits his needs. In order to find the right
school his parents and educators need to agree and come together to find the
perfect fit for Michael. It is a group effort. Mr. and Mrs. Doe should be involved with
12
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
their son’s education, but also get to know the professionals that are there to help
them through this process to make sure they are covered through IDEIA.
13
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
Pace v. Bogalusa City School Board, 137 F.Supp.2d 711 (E.D. La. 2001)
Travis Pace is a student with cerebral palsy, scoliosis, and various learning
disabilities. He needs assistance at school to use the restroom and is wheelchair
bound. Travis’s mother, Olivia Burks, claimed in a hearing that the school did not
meet needs of her child. He had an assistant for the restroom, but had to page her
and usually soiled his pants before she was able to assist him to the restroom. He
also did not have a safe way up and down the stairs. The lift that was provided was
formally for transportation of heavy books. This lift gave him injuries shown in
court. Travis’s special education classroom was smaller than the other classrooms
therefore more difficult for him to get around. There were many problems in school
that caused Travis’s education not be completely fulfilled. Burks individualized
education program (IEP) did not place him in any GED program and computer class.
The hearing officer stated that Travis Pace was not denied a free and
appropriate education plan. Nothing that was in Mrs. Burks and Pace’s concerns
really stopped Travis from having an appropriate education. Travis appealed the
hearing officer and went to the Louisiana State Level Review Panel (SLRP). SLRP
agreed that he was not being denied an IDEA. The school should provide an all day
aid but it is not required. SLRP also stated that they should get a safer way to
transfer Travis when they can. After this Mrs. Burks and Travis complained to The
Department of Justice, the office of civil rights of the department of education, and
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. There they stated
that he did have a free and appropriate education. There was a written agreement
between them and the school district to help students in wheelchairs to have safer
14
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
ways around the school and to be able to participate in activities that other nondisabled students where in.
My opinion in this situation is that Travis had a good education but his environment
was not appropriate for his needs. Travis should be able to go anywhere throughout
the school with out a problem and he should feel safe doing so. The first court ruling
was not exactly fair because he was denied a free and appropriate education. When
all of the class was learning Travis could be stuck cleaning up his soiled pants
instead of learning which is not a part of an appropriate education. I believe that
Travis should have a care giver at all times.
15
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
Wolfe v. Taconic-Hills Central School District, 167 F. Supp.2d 530 (N.D.N.Y.
2001)
In the case Wolfe v. Taconic-Hills Central School District Stephen Wolfe and
Alexandria Galbraith wanted reimbursement for their daughter, Charlottes private
schooling for the 1995-1996 school year. Her parents enrolled her at a private
kindergarten and the following year had a meeting with the principal at her districts
public school. They got to observe a first grade class and a transitional class. Wolfe’s
parents informed the principal of the possibility of Charlotte having a learning
disability. The principal did not think the transitional class was appropriate for
Charlotte and there stated that the private school was a better fit and was then
enrolled. Later that school year Charlotte was evaluated at the Yale Child Study
Center, and tested at the Kildonan School. There they saw that Charlotte showed
patterns of dyslexia and decided that the best way for her to learn is at a structured
school with trained staff. Wolfe registered her in the District and gave the new
school copies of the information found from the Yale Child Study Center and
Kildonan. Wolfe and Galbraith were sent a letter about a committee on Special
Education (SCE) meeting without the team evaluating Charolotte. The school made
an unfinished and inadequit Individualized education plan (IEP) draft for the
meeting. Charlottes parents did not agree with the schools ideas and requested that
they provide transportation to the private school.
A hearing took place in 1998 stating that the district did not follow through with
“child-find” responsibilities, failed to evaluate Charlotte, prepare a complete IEP
16
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
which accurately reflected her needs, and determined that Kildonan was an
appropriate placement and that equitable considerations supported tuition
reimbursement. The State Review officer stated that the district did not provide a
free and appropriate public education. The officer claimed that the district did not
evaluate Charlotte and that the private school was the most appropriate placement.
He did not allow tuition reimbursement because Galbraith stated she did not have
any intention of enrolling Charlotte in a public school.
I disagree with the court ruling because the Plantiffs looked at what the
public school had to offer before enrolling Charlotte into the private school. They
did not want to enroll their daughter in a school that they did not deem appropriate
for her educational needs. Firstly the District never evaluated Charlotte or provided
an appropriate IEP, which goes against IDEIA. IDEIA states that public school must
provide FAPE, and if the school cannot, it must provide funding for appropriate
education elsewhere.
17
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
Work Cited
Taylor v. Altoona Area School District | Juvenile Law Center. (2010, September 3).
Home | Juvenile Law Center. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from
http://www.jlc.org/resources/case-updates/taylor-v-altoona-area-schooldistrict
Google scholar. (2001, 79 266). Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7953962481996573342&q=C
291 F.3d 1086: Amanda Ford, a Minor by and Through Her Guardian Ad Litem,
Rodney
Ford; Rodney Ford, Petitioners-appellants, v. Long Beach Unified
School
District; Board of Education of Long Beach Unified School District;
Carl Cohn,
Superintendent of Long Beach Unified School District; Marlyse Linder,
Respondents-appellees. (2006, May 29). Justia Us Law. Retrieved April 15,
2013, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellatecourts/F3/291/1086/593192/
Leagle. (2010). Retrieved from WEST CHESTER AREA SCHOOL DIST. v. BRUCE C.
Google scholar. (2002, 6 21). Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11461918086749404735&hl=
en&a
Justia us law. (2001, 9 24). Retrieved from
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellatecourts/F3/266/916/582297/ Google scholar. (2001, 9 19). Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Wolfe v. Taconic-Hills Central
School
Pace v. Bogalusa City School Bd., 137 F. Supp. 2d 711 - Dist. Court, ED Louisiana
2001, March 14, 2001. Google Scholar.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case=Pace+v.+Bogalusa+City+School+Bo
ard
18
Supreme Court Cases
Kelts, McMahon
Campbell, T. J. (n.d.). FindACase™™ | DOE v. METRO NASHVILLE PUB. SCHS..
FindACase™™. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from,
http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19960701_0
000024.MTN.htm/qx
No. 05-7156. - KINGSMORE v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - US DC Circuit. (2006,
September 29). FindLaw: Cases and Codes. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1437048.html
19