 COPAA is a leader in shaping the body of case law protecting and enforcing the rights of students with disabilities and their families.
Our Amicus Committee provides technical assistance to members and files briefs in cases of national significance. The issues for amicus are issues affecting all children with disabilities and topics of the briefs are varied. Recent topics include the requirement to identify and evaluate all children in all areas of suspected disability; to the constitutional protections and right to be free from physical restraints in schools; and, the three separate and distinct rights and protections offered to all students with disabilities in schools under the IDEA, Section 504 and the ADA.
COPAA welcomes requests for Amicus Briefs for cases that:
1) present an issue(s) consistent with our mission statement
2) have a precedent setting value, and
3) affect the educational welfare of students with disabilities.
Click here for instructions on how to submit request for Amicus or Technical Assistance.
This collection included Amicus Briefs written by or for the COPAA Amicus Committee. Also includes ruling, opinions, and Briefs that COPAA signed onto authored by other organizations.
|
Espinoza v. Montana Dept Revenue (Sup Ct, 2019)
PDF (317.78 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
11/18/2019
|
|
The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA)Opens in New Window, The National Disability Rights Network, The Arc of the United StatesOpens in New Window, and a coalition of advocacy and legal services organizations represented by the law firm Clinton and Peed filed an amicus briefOpens in New Window in the case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of RevenueOpens in New Window asking the Court to uphold the decision made by the Montana Supreme Court invalidating Montana’s private school tax-credit scholarship program as it is harmful to students with disabilities. While families petitioning the court suggest that the program would help students with disabilities, school vouchers and tax-credit programs like Montana’s actually hurt students with disabilities by redirecting public funds to private schools that are largely unbound by the federal laws in place for over four decades that protect the rights of students with disabilities.
|
|
F.H. et. al. v. Memphis City Sch (6th Cir, 2013)
PDF (529.88 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
1/9/2014
|
|
Over a ten-year period, F.H. endured physical and emotional abuse from a series of aides who were not properly trained or supervised by the school district. In 2011, despite a Due Process Settlement Agreement, the abuse by F.H.’s aides continued. F.H.’s parents then filed a complaint in federal district court. The federal district court dismissed the parents‘ claims, holding that plaintiffs’ were required to exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing suit. In the Amicus Brief, COPAA argues that requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies to enforce a Settlement Agreement reached during a Resolution Session "conflicts with the plain text of the statute and undermines the purpose of the statute’s alternative dispute resolution provisions," and requiring a student with an IEP to first exhaust administrative procedures before filing a suit under the ADA and Section 504 puts students with IEPs in a less favorable position than students without IEPs to enforce federal law
|
|
L.J. v. SB of Broward County (11th Cir,2018)
PDF (156.74 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
2/20/2018
|
|
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit, L.J. v. School Board of Broward County. COPAA members, Jodi Siegel, Kirsten Anderson, Alice Nelson, and Kevin Golembiewski represent the family. The Supreme Court has recently made clear that the IEPs of children with disabilities must be “appropriately ambitious” to enable them to make progress in in light of their unique abilities. Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 1000 (2017). The Court explained that children with disabilities are to be challenged to reach their potential progress just as their non-disabled peers are, regardless of the severity of their disabilities. The Supreme Court instead held that IDEA “requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. 137 S. Ct. at 1001.
|
|
LeJeune G., v. Pennsylvania (3rd Cir., 2019)
PDF (373.02 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
2/4/2019
|
|
COPAA and Education Law Center (ELC) filed an amicus brief in the Third Circuit case: LeJeune G., v. Pennsylvania Department of Education, et. al. Catherine Merino Reisman wrote and filed the brief for COPAA, Selene Almazan, Ellen Saideman and Jessica Salonus assisted with the editing. David Berney and Kevin Golembiewski, COPAA members represent the family in this matter. They appealed the District Court decision. IDEA places ultimate responsibility for ensuring that students get FAPE on the states, which are responsible for having in effect policies and procedures that make FAPE available to all children with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1). States are responsible for general supervision of educational programs in the state. 20 U.S.C. § 1411. States may provide for charter schools to be free-standing Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) or for charter schools to be operated by Local Educational Agencies. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(19)
|
|
A.D.and R.D. v. Haddon Heights BOE (3rd Cir, 2017)
PDF (236.14 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
8/1/2017
|
|
COPAA, along with amici Education Law Center (ELC) filed an amicus brief in support of the parents/Appellants in A.D. and R.D. Individually and on behalf of their son, S.D. v. Haddon Heights Board of Education on July 19, 2017. The procedural history of this case is as follows: The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed SD’s claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under IDEA. The Third Court affirmed the dismissal in S.D. v. Haddon Heights Bd. of Educ., 833 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 2016) (S.D. I). The Supreme Court vacated S.D. I and remanded for reconsideration in light of Fry, which was decided several months after S.D. I. See S.D. v. Haddon Heights Bd. of Educ., 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3107 (May 15, 2017). Catherine Merino Reisman, Sarah Zuba and Judith Gran represent the family, Ellen Saideman was co-counsel on the petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court.
|
|
A.G. v. Wissahickon, 3d Cir, Oct2009
PDF (183.42 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
10/11/2012
|
|
COPAA and the Education Law Center filed an amicus brief addressing the research basis for LRE requirements in. A.G. v. Wissahickon Sch. Dist. case in the Third Circuit. The brief addresses the particular importance of providing education to all children – including children with disabilities – in the least restrictive environment, so as to promote independence and self-sufficiency. In the Brief, COPAA and ELC provide to the Court some of the extensive empirical research which demonstrates the importance and efficacy of providing education to children with disabilities in the general education classroom. Special thanks to Larry Berger of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP for drafting and filing the brief.
|
|
A.L. v. Clovis USD (9th Cir, 2018)
PDF (444.73 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
1/14/2019
|
|
COPAA filed a brief on December 21, 2018 in the Ninth Circuit in A.L. v. Clovis Unified School District. Catherine Merino Reisman and Selene Almazan drafted and filed the brief for COPAA. Barbara Ransom, COPAA member, represents the family. IDEA is a very different statute from ADA and Section 504. Reading the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-372 (HCPA), now codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l), to require exhaustion in all discrimination cases that deal with students or educational environments confuses and conflates the entirely different processes, standards, and purposes of these acts. Such a reading is inappropriate and erroneous.
|
|
A.M. v. Monrovia, 9th Cir Decision, Dec2010
PDF (85.36 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
10/11/2012
|
|
A.M. v. Monrovia Unified Sch. Dist. - On December 15, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case. On the issue briefed by COPAA, the court agreed with our arguments, holding “Neither the IDEA claim nor the Section 504 claim was mooted by A.M.’s death because the parents sought reimbursement and damages.” The panel remanded to see if the issue of damages had been waived by failure to present it at the administrative level. In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Judge Bennett disagreed that a remand was necessary but agreed with the conclusion on mootness. Judge Bennett specifically cited to COPAA’s brief, stating: “I also concur in the majority’s conclusion that neither the IDEA claim nor the Section 504 claim was mooted by A.M.’s death, because the parents sought reimbursement and damages, so that the district court’s award of attorney fees on the ground that the parents’ separate claims were mooted was improper,"
|
|
A.M.v. NY City DOE (2nd Cir, 2016)
PDF (243.52 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
4/20/2016
|
|
On April 18, 2016 COPAA filed an amicus brief in support of the Appellant-Plaintiff in the 2nd Circuit case: A.M., individually and on behalf of E.H., a child with a disability v. New York City Department of Education. COPAA member, Jason Sterne of the Cuddy Law Firm, represents the parent. Selene Almazan and Andrew Feinstein drafted the brief for COPAA, Andrew Feinstein, a member of the 2nd Circuit, filed the brief on COPAA’s behalf. Alexis Casillas assisted in the drafting.
|
|
Anchorage v. M.P, District Ruling, Nov2011
PDF (52.55 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
9/25/2012
|
|
Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P. , COPAA previously filed a brief in this matter pending before the Ninth Circuit (see below). On November 1, 2011 the District Court ruled in favor of parents, upholding the Hearing Officer’s determination that the school district did not satisfy the Rowley “meaningful benefit” standard when it utilized an outdated IEP. The court also concluded that the District Court made a legal error when it concluded that the parents’ vigorous advocacy for their child excused the district’s inappropriate IEP.
|
|
Anchorage v. M.P. Opinion, 9th Cir, Jul2012
PDF (103.56 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
9/25/2012
|
COPAA previously filed a brief in this matter pending before the Ninth Circuit (see below). On November 1, 2011 the District Court ruled in favor of parents, upholding the Hearing Officer’s determination that the school district did not satisfy the Rowley “meaningful benefit” standard when it utilized an outdated IEP. The court also concluded that the District Court made a legal error when it concluded that the parents’ vigorous advocacy for their child excused the district’s inappropriate IEP. (see below) Understanding the importance of this ruling to other cases, COPAA and its Amicus partner filed a Motion asking the Ninth Circuit to publish its decision in this matter. On July 19, 2012, the Ninth Circuit granted that motion and issued a new opinion in Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P. that was substantially more complete than the original; relying heavily on the arguments presented in COPAA’s brief.
|
|
Ashley Krawietz v. Galveston (5th Cir, 2017)
PDF (244.86 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
11/14/2017
|
|
COPAA filed a Motion to file an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit, Ashely Kraweitz, an individual with disabilities, by and with and through her parent/guardian/next friend, Amanda Parker v. Galveston Independent School District on November 8, 2017. Selene Almazan and Roy T. Atwood drafted and filed the brief for COPAA. The brief supports the parents and urges the Court to uphold the district court’s ruling that the parents are entitled to attorneys’ fees for the work done to secure the favorable ruling that Ashley was denied a FAPE and entitled to transition services to prepare her for adulthood.
|
|
Author's Guild Inc. v. HathiTrust-DECISION(2d Cir)
PDF (489.74 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
7/1/2014
|
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the members of the HathiTrust Digital Library can “create a full-text searchable database of copyrighted works and provide those works in formats accessible to those with disabilities.” Digitizing copyrighted works for the purpose of creating a full-text searchable database is not copyright infringement, because it is a “fair use” of those works that is protected by copyright law.
Providing individuals with print disabilities full digital access to those copyrighted works — text and images — is also “fair use” under the Copyright Act and consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The Second Circuit also referenced Congress’ intent in the Americans with Disabilities Act to “‘assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency’” for individuals with disabilities.
|
|
Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust (2nd Cir, 2013)
PDF (683.99 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
6/5/2013
|
COPAA joined several other organizations today in filing an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust. The brief emphasized the policy reasons in federal law for affirming the district court decision that creation of digital copies of copyrighted works in nonprofit university libraries constituted fair use of the works under 17 U.S.C.S. § 107 since the use for scholarship and research was transformative with purposes of superior search capabilities rather than actual access to the copyrighted works, and facilitating access for print-disabled persons. Jo Anne Simon of Jo Anne Simon, P.C., with the help of Mary J. Goodwin and Amy F. Robertson, authored the brief. COPAA Amicus Committee members Leslie Margolis, Victoria Sulerzyski and Selene Almazan assisted with revisions.
|
|
BD v. DC (DC Cir, 2015)
PDF (294.6 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
8/11/2015
|
COPAA and Children's Law Center (CLC) filed an amicus brief on July 13, 2015 in the case: BD v. DC. COPAA member Diana Savit is the attorney for the parents. The Appellants' brief is here. The amicus brief offered guidance to the Court on the appropriate mechanism or procedure to enforce a favorable hearing officer decision (HOD) that parents received at the lower level.
Amici support the protection of all procedural and substantive rights afforded parents under the IDEA. The amici urge the court to follow the plain language of the IDEA in overturning the lower court’s finding that it had no jurisdiction to enforce a favorable and final HOD. Exhausting the detailed due process procedures set forth in the plain language of the IDEA is complex, costly and time-consuming for families of children with disabilities.
|
|
Bd. of Educ. of the North Rockland (2nd Cir, 2017)
PDF (96.24 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
11/28/2017
|
|
COPAA submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Second Circuit, Bd. of Educ. of the North Rockland Central Sch. Dist. v. C.M., et al.,on November 22, 2017. Selene Almazan, Catherine Merino Reisman and Ellen Saideman drafted the brief on behalf of COPAA, Catherine Merino Reisman filed the brief on behalf of COPAA. The parent is represented by Marion Walsh, Littman Krooks, LLP. Amicus supports the parents and urges the Court to reverse the district court’s ruling calculating the parents’ statute of limitations to bar all the Section 504 claims, even those that occurred within the three years prior (three years is New York statute specific) to the filing of the request for a due process hearing on January 9, 2015.
|
|
Butte Sch. Dist. v. C.S., et al. (9th Cir.,2019)
PDF (780.84 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
9/24/2019
|
|
COPAA filed a Motion for Leave to file an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the student-Appellant in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1, v. C.S., et al., on September 10, 2019. Selene Almazan, Alexis Casillas, and Ellen M. Saideman drafted and filed the brief for COPAA. COPAA members, Andree Larose, Alice Nelson and Tal Goldin represent the family. COPAA’s brief explained to the Ninth Circuit how it must consider Endrew F.’s mandate that IEPs for all children with disabilities must be appropriately ambitious and have challenging objectives, including for those children whose disabilities involve exhibition of challenging behavior.
|
|
C. D. v. Natick PSD & MA Bureau (1st Cir, 2018)
PDF (543.42 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
1/7/2019
|
|
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the 1st Circuit last month in C. D. v. Natick Public School District and Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals. Selene Almazan and Ellen Saideman drafted and filed the brief on behalf of COPAA. Laura Martucci, COPAA member, and Benjamin Wish filed the brief on behalf of the parents. COPAA’s brief supported the parents’ least restrictive environment (LRE) argument. Congress made clear that one of its overriding priorities in enacting IDEA was giving students with disabilities access to the general education curriculum and education in the regular classroom to the maximum extent possible. This requirement has been strengthened in subsequent reauthorizations of the IDEA. IDEA’s mandates are not empty aspirations; in fact, research demonstrates children with disabilities can achieve considerably more educational benefit from placement in general education classes with access to the general ed curriculum through supplementary aids and services.
|
|
CD. v Natick Appellant Brief (1st Cir, 2018)
PDF (9.63 MB)
|
Administration
|
1/7/2019
|
|
D.L. v. D.C. (D.C., 2018)
PDF (472.97 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
1/31/2019
|
|
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PUBLIC CITIZEN, INC., HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC, NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM, WASHINGTON LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS, COUNCIL OF PARENT ATTORNEYS AND ADVOCATES, INC., ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NATIONAL WOMENS LAW CENTER, AARP, AARP FOUNDATION, AND ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND REVERSAL. As Appellants explain, the district court erred when, having concluded that Appellants are entitled to attorneys’ fees based on prevailing market rates for complex federal litigation in the relevant community, it applied the rates set forth in the United States government’s new USAO-ALM Matrix created in 2015. Those rates do not reflect prevailing rates for complex federal litigation in the District of Columbia. he district court should have used the LSI Laffey Matrix.
|
|
D.L. v. District of Columbia (DC Cir, 2016)
PDF (623.54 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
1/24/2017
|
COPAA, along with AARP, AARP FOUNDATION, NATIONAL FEDERATION FOR THE BLIND, NATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK, THE JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW, NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, AND THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVILRIGHTS UNDER THE LAW filed an amicus brief on December 8, 2016 in D.L. v. District of Columbia, et. al.
AARP Foundation Litigation filed the brief on behalf of amici. Selene Almazan drafted and edited the brief on behalf of COPAA. Margaret Kohn, COPAA member, began the litigation, and continues to represent the Plaintiffs along with BRUCE J. TERRIS, CAROLYN SMITH PRAVLIK, TODD A. GLUCKMAN, PATRICK A. SHELDON, Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP.
|
|
D.S. v. Trumbull Board of Ed, (2nd Cir., 2019)
PDF (483.81 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
7/23/2019
|
|
COPAA, The National Disability Rights Network, and Disability Rights Connecticut filed an amici brief in the Second Circuit, D.S. v. Trumbull Board of Education, on July 3, 2019. Catherine Merino Reisman, Selene Almazan, Andrew Feinstein, and Ellen Saideman drafted and filed the brief for COPAA. The brief supports the parents and urges the Court to reverse the district court’s ruling and provide the parents with their right to an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at public expense. As Amici explained, one of the most critical of the parents’ procedural rights is the right to an IEE at public expense. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1) (2017); 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b). This right ensures “parents’ access to an expert who can evaluate all the materials that the school must make available and who can give an independent opinion.” Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 60-61. Amici assert that for the parents to have meaningful participation in the educational process, they need to have an expert evaluator
|
|
Dallas ISD v. Michelle Woody (5th Cir, 2016)
PDF (275.69 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
2/17/2017
|
|
COPAA submitted an amicus brief in the 5th Circuit, Dallas Independent School District v. Michelle Woody, as next friend of KW in late November 2016. Roy Atwood, COPAA member represents the parent; Selene Almazan and Catherine Merino Reisman drafted and filed the brief for COPAA. Alexis Casillas assisted in editing and drafting. The brief supports the Parents, and urges the Court to uphold the District Court’s ruling that Dallas Independent School District (DISD) failed to timely provide a free appropriate public education to K.W. as well as the finding that the failure to file to defend its assessment waives any defense it may have to the parent’s entitlement to an IEE at public expense through the provider of her choosing. The failure to make a timely offer of an IEP has a substantive impact on the student if the student’s education within the school district “would have been different if school officials had fulfilled their statutory responsibilities on time.”
|
|
Decision, Price et al v. DC (2015)
PDF (58.4 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
6/30/2015
|
|
The D.C. Court of Appeals issued a decision on June 25th, Price v. DC, affirming the rights of families to secure counsel. The D.C. Court of Appeals agreed with the parent and COPAA’s Amicus positions and determined that the fee shifting provisions apply to court appointed attorneys in the D.C. Superior Court system and payment through the court appointed panel does not bar attorneys from utilizing the fee shifting statute at a prevailing rate for representation on behalf of families who otherwise could not afford to retain counsel.
|
|
Decision: Quatro v. Tehachapi (9th Cir, 2018)
PDF (169.48 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
11/27/2018
|
On November 19, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Charis Quatro v. Tehachapi Unified Sch. Dist. affirming the award of the attorney’s fees on behalf of the parent as the prevailing party. The parent was represented by Andrea Marcus, a longtime COPAA member; Selene Almazan, Alexis Casillas, Catherine Merino Reisman and Ellen Saideman drafted and edited the amicus brief for filing.
|
|
Decision: Spring Branch ISD v. O.W (5th Cir, 2019)
PDF (302.81 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
9/24/2019
|
|
On September 16, 2019, parents prevailed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. O.W., which affirmed in part the hearing officer’s and district court’s decisions finding that the school district violated its child find duties under IDEA, committed numerous IEP implementation failures, and were responsible for the child’s private school tuition reimbursement, the extent of which the Fifth Circuit remanded to the district court to determine. The Fifth Circuit decision confirmed that O.W. was denied FAPE from the school district’s inappropriate discipline techniques and frequent use of time-outs as it found these techniques were inconsistent with O.W.’s IEP and resulted in educational and behavioral regression for O.W.
|
|
Disability Rights Texas’s Brief in Spring Branch
PDF (105.88 KB)
|
Administration
|
1/7/2019
|
|
Doe v. Cape Elizabeth (1 Cir, May, 2015)
PDF (123.53 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
5/15/2015
|
|
COPAA filed an amicus brief in the 1st Circuit Doe v. Cape Elizabeth, this week. COPAA member, Richard O'Meara, represents the family. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act a student qualifies for special education services under the Specific Learning Disability (SLD) category if she meets two basic criteria, both found in the IDEA’s regulations. First, there must be evidence that the child “does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or fails to meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the eight listed areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child's age or State-approved grade-level standards.” In this case, it was Jane Doe’s reading fluency skills that were implicated in one of the eight areas of disability. However, under the IDEA regulations a deficit in just one area is enough for Jane to be classified as needing specialized instruction: special education. Second, although federal courts may d
|
|
Dowler v. CloverPark SD, Washington, Aug2011
PDF (771.67 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
9/27/2012
|
|
Favorable opinion from Washington Supreme Court, holding that state law tort claims are not subject to the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement.The court stated “[n]othing in this opinion prevents Appellants from requesting an IDEA due-process hearing to address those matters that are appropriate for an IDEA hearing officer to review while simultaneously seeking relief in court for their claims of tort and unlawful discrimination. An IDEA hearing officer will be able to address how Appellants will be treated in the future with respect to such issues as classroom discipline and the facilitation of movement. Only the court, however, is able to remedy past actions that constitute torts or unlawful discrimination.” (Emphasis added). The court mentions there is no federal preemption of state law claims and overturned the summary judgment opinion finding material questions of fact to be tried by a jury as to whether the torts and discrimination were committed.(See below for COPAA brief)
|
|
Ebonie S. v. Pueblo SD 60, 10th Cir, Sept2011
PDF (238.3 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
9/27/2012
|
|
Case No. 09-cv-00858-WJM-MEH): COPAA filed an amicus brief in this case in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a student who was regularly restrained in a wrap-around desk. COPAA argued the use of this restraint desk with Ebonie S. was unacceptable under all but emergency circumstances because it served no pedagogical purpose and failed to meet any accepted professional standards. Further, Defendants’ frequent restraint of Ebonie S. using a wraparound desk with restraint bar deprived her of her fundamental right to liberty and freedom from physical restraint in violation of her Constitutional right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, the district court had erred in comparing Ebonie S. to other children with disabilities rather than all students for purposes of its equal protection analysis. Baker & McKenzie pro bono attorneys drafted the amicus brief. Leslie Seid Margolis, Andrew Feinstein, Catherine Merino Reisman reviewed.
|
|
Endrew F. v. Douglas County (Supreme Ct, 2016)
PDF (112.43 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
11/21/2016
|
|
Supreme Court asked to decide: “What is the level of educational benefit that school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with a free and appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. COPAA files brief with CHADD and CAPCA asserting the following standard: A child “benefits from” instruction when the services target all areas of educational need in order to ensure achievement consistent with non-disabled peers in the general education curriculum so as to enable students to be prepared for post-school activities.
|
|
F.C., et al. v. Tennessee DOE (6th Cir, 2017)
PDF (271.32 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
11/21/2017
|
|
COPAA submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Sixth Circuit, F.C., et al. v. Tennessee Department of Education on November 16, 2017. Selene Almazan, Jessica Salonus, and Ellen Saideman assisted in the drafting along with fellow COPAA member, Judith Gran, who filed the brief in the Sixth Circuit. Amicus supports the parents and urges the Court to reverse the district court’s ruling that parents who obtained a final order dismissing their due process complaint did not satisfy IDEA’s exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and remand the case to the district court for a decision on the merits. COPAA further urges the Court to adopt the Third Circuit’s Ligonier approach to calculating the statute of limitations and apply the “discovery rule” to parents’ IDEA claims rather than simply time-barring claims that preceded two years prior to the date of the parents’ due process complaint filing.
|
|
F.H. v. Memphis City DECISION (6th Cir,2014)
PDF (93.79 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
9/4/2014
|
|
September 4, 2014 - the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a great precedential opinion favoring families' rights to seek relief for non-educational injuries and to enforce settlement agreements in the case F.H. et. al. v. Memphis City School (6th Cir, 2013). In December of 2013 COPAA filed amici in this case of along with the Disability Law and Advocacy Center of Tennessee, The Arc Tennessee, the Tennessee Alliance for Legal Services, Support and Training for Exceptional Parents, Tennessee Voices for Children, Inc., and People First of Tennessee.
|
|
Fry v. Napoleon (Supreme Ct, 2016)
PDF (376.64 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
9/7/2016
|
|
COPAA and the Advocates for Children of New York (AFC) filed an amicus brief on August 29, 2016 in support of Stacy Fry, Brent Fry and the minor child E.F. At issue is the refusal of Napoleon Community Schools to allow E.F. to bring her service dog to school, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). The reason given to the family was that the provision of E.F.’s one on one assistant satisfied its obligations to E.F. under a completely different statute: IDEA. When E.F. and her family brought suit under the ADA and Section 504, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the family should first have sought relief under the IDEA and exhausted administrative remedies through the IDEA. IDEA is a very different statute from ADA and Section 504.
|
|
G.M. v. Drycreek Joint Elem, 9th Cir, June2011
PDF (66.9 KB)
[ more ]
[ hide ]
|
Administration
|
10/11/2012
|
|
COPAA signed onto brief with Disability Rights Education Defense Fund (DREDF), Disability Rights Advocates (DRA) and Disability Rights California, addressing whether the district court properly granted a school district’s motion to evade the requirements of stay-put by discontinuing the use of a private provider. The district court relied on narrow exceptions to stay-put, which the district court inflated to swallow the rule: (1) an exception regarding placements that are “temporary,” which the district court extended to define placements subject to review after one year, and (2) an exception on the basis that certain changes involving the provider do not change the educational placement, which the district court extended to hold that any change involving the provider does not fall within the meaning of changes to the “current educational placement” under section 1415(j). The brief was written by Anna Levine from DRA. Andrew Feinstein and Selene Almazan reviewed.
|
|
