Posts tagged with "federal law"

What is “Gifted and Talented” and What If My Child Is Identified as Such?

While reading a parent’s education law guide written by attorneys here at Maya Murphy, I was initially surprised to read the following: “A child requiring special education in Connecticut includes not only children with disabilities but also those who are found to be especially gifted and talented.”[1] Indeed, “a child requiring special education” is not limited to those deemed eligible pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; see my previous post), but a child that:

[H]as extraordinary learning ability or outstanding talent in the creative arts, the development of which requires programs or services beyond the level of those ordinarily provided in regular school programs but which may be provided through special education as part of the public school program.[2]

The Regulations Concerning State Agencies go into greater depth as to what constitutes “gifted and talented,” “extraordinary learning ability,” and “outstanding talent in the creative arts.”[3]

You may be asking yourself, “But how do I know my child is gifted and talented?” The State Department of Education produced a very informative list of FAQs, one of which directly addresses this question:

Some children are able to concentrate for long periods of time at a very young age or demonstrate their gifts and talents by using a large vocabulary, constant questioning, demonstrating unusual creativity, performing advanced math calculations, and/or exhibiting exceptional ability in specific subject areas.

Not all children, however, demonstrate their potential abilities and talents in the traditional manners mentioned above. Thus, concerned parents should consult with child development specialists, such as their local school officials, pediatricians, or higher education personnel for more information.[4]

Gifted and Talented (GaT) Programs

The rules governing gifted and talented (GaT) are somewhat similar to the mandates stemming from special education classifications under IDEA (and associated state law codifying its requirements). Schools districts must “provide identification, referral and evaluation for gifted and talented children.”[5] However, offering GaT programming is optional: “(c) Each local or regional board of education may provide special education for children requiring it who are described by subparagraph (B) of subdivision (5) of section 10-76a and for other exceptional children for whom special education is not required by law.[6] 

Thus, if you are the parent of a child identified as GaT and your school elects not to offer special programs or services, they are not denying your child the free appropriate public education, or FAPE, as is required under federal law.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

However, if your school district refuses to identify, refer, or evaluate your child for GaT status pursuant to Connecticut law, it is imperative that you seek the counsel of an experienced and knowledgeable school law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding gifted education, special education, or any other education 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 (located in Fairfield County), by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

 


[1] “Advocating on Your Child’s Behalf: A Parent’s Guide to Connecticut School Law,” by Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at pp.10.

[2] Connecticut General Statutes § 10-76a(5)(B).

[3] Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 10-76a-2.

[4] “Gifted and Talented – QA,” by the State Department of Education. Accessed October 5, 2012: http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2618&q=320948

[5] Id. at § 10-76d-1.

[6] Connecticut General Statutes § 10-76d(c).

Preemptive Effect of LMRA Extends to Suits Alleging Liability in Tort

Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA)

Labor relations between an employer and a union are typically defined in a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between the two.  The CBA sets forth the parties’ respective rights and obligations with respect to such things as wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.  The Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) grants jurisdiction to the federal district courts for “[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce.”

If resolution of a state law claim turns upon interpretation of the CBA, the claim is preempted and subject to dismissal by the federal court.  But “when the meaning of contract terms is not the subject of dispute, the bare fact that a collective-bargaining agreement will be consulted in the course of state-law litigation plainly does not require the claim to be extinguished.”

A Relevant Case

A decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out the fuzzy line that can sometimes exist between a preempted claim and one that is not.  In Adonna v. Sargent Mfg. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10343 (2d Cir. May 23, 2012), a union employee brought claims against his employer for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.  The employer conduct complained of included reassignment, suspension, reduction in pay, and demands not imposed on any other employee.

The Court of Appeals concluded that whether or to what extent this conduct was wrongful could be determined only by examining the CBA provisions relating to the employer’s right to manage, direct, and discipline the workforce, and set employee wages.  Because the employee’s claims were “inextricably intertwined” with the terms of the CBA they were preempted and properly dismissed by the trial court.

Employers and employees alike should be aware of the extensive preemptive effect of the LMRA.  It is the rare state-law tort claim that will not require not only the consultation, but also the interpretation of the relevant CBA, thereby resulting in preemption at the federal level.

The employment law attorneys in the Westport, Connecticut office of Maya Murphy, P.C. have extensive experience in the negotiation and litigation of all sorts of employment-related disputes and assist clients from Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, Darien, Norwalk, Westport and Fairfield in resolving such issues. Please contact our office at 203-221-3100.