Posts tagged with "ADA"

Americans With Disabilities Act

Defining “Disability”

State and county laws dilute the effect of disability rulings. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the definition of a disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) will have limited use for Westchester employers struggling with the issue, a pair of lawyers specializing in employment law said.

That’s because the Empire State defines a “disability” more liberally as a medical impairment rather than the national standard that defines it as a condition that impairs at least one major life activity, such as bathing or brushing one’s teeth.

Supreme Court Ruling

Using that narrower meaning, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an automobile plant worker from Kentucky could not be considered disabled because she failed to prove that her carpal tunnel syndrome “substantially limited” a major life activity.

“It is insufficient for individuals attempting to prove disability status under this test to merely submit evidence of a medical diagnosis of an impairment,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in the court’s 18-page decision.

Ella Williams, a paint inspector at the Toyota Motor Corp. plant in Georgetown, Ky., was fired for poor attendance that she blamed on her illness. She sued Toyota in a U.S. District Court, claiming the automaker refused to provide her with an ADA-required “reasonable” accommodation from her job polishing cars on the assembly line. Her claim was dismissed by the district court but reinstated by a federal appellate court in Cincinnati.

The Supreme Court referred Williams’ case back to the appellate court for further review (Toyota v. Ella Williams, No. 00-1089).

Who will this ruling affect?

“Before the ruling, employees lost 94 percent of claims filed under ADA because they could not establish that they were disabled to the extent called for under the law. This certainly isn’t going to make it any easier for them,” said Robert Heiferman of Jackson Lewis, the employment law firm that has an office in White Plains.

“Nationally, this ruling is probably a lot more significant than it is in New York,” he said. Heiferman cited the state’s human rights law, which bars discrimination against people with disabilities, as well as the state’s disability definition, which is broad enough to include carpal tunnel syndrome.

In addition, the Human Rights Commission created by Westchester County in 2000 can take action on complaints from individuals alleging discrimination on the basis of a disability.

A lawyer with practices in New York and Connecticut says Westchester employers may benefit from the ruling, notwithstanding the state and county laws.

“For employers, the Supreme Court ruling now creates the ability to allege a new defense in ADA cases,” said Joseph Maya, whose Maya & Associates P.C. specializes in employment and labor law. The firm has offices in New York City and Fairfield, Conn.

The Impact of the Ruling Going Forward

“The Supreme Court ruling is a very significant decision that will provide strong guidance for the lower courts, administrative agencies and certainly the appellate courts in cases concerning disability and employees bringing claims against employees,” Maya said. Disability community advocates criticized the Supreme Court decision, though one advocate said the decision highlighted an issue he said merited further study.

“Part of the problem we see is that there has to be a more universally accepted definition of a disability. A very well-meaning piece of legislation has a lot of confusing language in it. It warrants a second look,” said Robert S. Cole, a principal with his wife, Susan, in Cole Communications of Eastchester, and a board member of the 26 million-member American Association for People With Disabilities, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

By ALEX PHILIPPIDIS
Fairfield County Business Journal

–

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County. Should you have any questions about age discrimination and workplace discrimination or any other employment law matter, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut, by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

What Services Are Required for School-Aged Children with Autism in Connecticut?

Special Education and COVID-19: Impact on your Child’s Section 504 Plan or IEP

Special Education During Remote Learning

In March of 2020, many Governors across the country closed their schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 21, 2020, the U.S. Department of Education (“DOE”) published guidance for local school agencies on how to appropriately handle special education and services to children with disabilities during the ongoing public health crisis.

The DOE has emphasized that school districts’ compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) school districts should not prevent distance instruction. Accordingly, special education services should continue during the period of remote learning from home as much as feasible.

Responsibility of LEAs

During school closures due to the virus, if local education agencies (“LEAs”) continue to provide educational opportunities to general student populations, children with disabilities are entitled to receive the same educational opportunities that are being afforded to general student populations. Specifically, children with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate education (“FAPE”), pursuant to Section 504 and the ADA.

LEAs must ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, each student with a disability be provided the special education and related services set forth in the student’s IEP or Section 504 Plan. In the event of school closures, an IEP Team or PPT may, but is not required to, consider remote or distance learning plans in your child’s IEP, as long as the instruction is meaningful.

During the COVID-19 national emergency, schools may not be able to provide all services in the same manner that are typically provided to students. While it may be unfeasible or unsafe for some school districts, during current emergency school closures, to provide hands-on physical therapy, occupational therapy, or sign language educational services, some disability-related modifications and services may be effectively provided online.

For example, extensions of time for assignments, videos with accurate captioning or embedded sign language interpreting, accessible reading materials, and speech or language services by way of video conferencing may all be successfully instituted remotely for students with disabilities. Teachers providing special education plans may have to create more specific daily or weekly plans for a special needs child who is now at home for the rest of the school year.

IDEA Eligibility

Additionally, the DOE guidance includes IDEA timelines for state complaints, IEPs, reevaluations, and due process hearings and encourages school teams and parents to work collaboratively and creatively to meet IEP timeline requirements. If a child has been found eligible to receive special education and related services under the IDEA, the IEP Team must meet and develop an initial IEP within 30 days of that determination and IEPs must be reviewed on an annual basis.

However, due to COVID-19, parents and school districts may agree to conduct IEP meetings through alternate means, including video conferences or telephonic conference calls. Of note, due to the pandemic, when making changes to a child’s IEP, the parent of a child with a disability and the school district may agree to not convene an IEP Team meeting for the purposes of making changes and can develop a written amendment or modification to the child’s IEP.

A reevaluation of a child with a disability must occur at least every three years, unless both the parents and school district agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary. However, a reevaluation may be conducted through a review of existing evaluation data when appropriate, without a meeting and without obtaining parental consent, unless it is determined that additional assessments are needed.

Extended Absence from School

In regard to state special education complaints, absent agreement by the parties, a state may be able to extend the 60-day timeline for complaint resolution, if exceptional circumstances exist. The DOE has now stated that exceptional circumstances include a large number of state workers unavailable or absent from work for an extended period of time due to the pandemic. In regard to due process hearings, the parties can come to a mutual agreement to extend the 30-day resolution deadline due to COVID-19. Additionally, a due process hearing officer may grant a specific extension of time at the request of either party to the hearing.

Moreover, when a child with a disability is classified as needing homebound instruction because of a medical problem, as ordered by a physician, and is home for an extended period of time, generally more than ten (10) consecutive school days, an individualized education program (IEP) meeting could be necessary to change the child’s placement and the contents of the child’s IEP. If a child with a disability contracts COVID-19 and has to be absent from school for an extended period of time while school is open, parents or guardians may be able to make arrangements with the LEA to provide homebound instruction special education and related services.

–

If you have any questions about special education and related services during the COVID-19 pandemic, contact Attorney Joseph Maya at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@mayalaw.com for a complimentary consultation regarding your matter.