Court Opinion 1 : Phyllene W. v. Huntsville City (AL) Bd. of Ed. (11th Cir. 2015)
In this scenario, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit made a significant reversal to the decision of a Hearing Officer and a U. S. District Court to rule favoring the parent and child. It is a situation where the child suffered from hearing impairment, but there was no evidence of medical information regarding M.W’s hearing. Consequently, since the board failed to evaluate M.W. concerning the hearing loss, it was impossible to guarantee the child the chance to benefit from the educational gains from an appropriate IEP (Katsiyannis et al., 2016). However, the Court of Appeals claimed that The Board did indeed IDEA specifications by failing to evaluate the necessary evidence whether the child suffered from a hearing impairment considering that there was a possibility as earlier claimed. It failed in that hence the reversal of the previous ruling.
Court Opinion 2 : A.C. v. Shelby County (6th Cir. 2013)
In this case, the parents of a disabled child requested the school for a series of accommodations against the will of the school. Eventually, it soured the relationship between the parents and the school, which prompted the school’s principal to file a Department of Child Services report alleging parental abuse. As it happened in the initial case, the district court ruled favoring the school in that the report provided was not retaliatory (American Bar Association, 2013). However, the parents later appealed with a claim that there were improper judgment and the court grossly ignored substantial evidence of retaliatory intent. It was a Pro-child 504 retaliation decision and for it to go through there must be a finding that the school district retaliated against the parents for asserting their rights under Section 504. The Sixth Circuit concurred with the parents’ claims, therefore, reversing and remanding the case.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Court Opinion 3 : F. H. v. Memphis City Schools (6th Cir. 2014)
In this case, parents filed suit against the school after the child was verbally, physically, and sexually abused by his aides at school. Due to sound evidence that indeed the school violated the child’s rights, it entered into a Settlement Agreement with the parent, but it later refused to honor it. In regard, the court found that under Sec. 1983, it is not a necessity for claims to have exhaustion under IDEA (Alexander & Alexander, 2015). As a result, the settlement agreement was and still enforceable in courts hence the obligation of the school to honor it fully.
References
Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2015). The law of schools, students, and teachers in a nutshell . St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing
American Bar Association (2013). A.C. et al v. Shelby County Board of Education - 6th Circuit. Media Alerts. ABA.
Katsiyannis, A., Counts, J., Popham, M., Ryan, J., & Butzer, M. (2016). Litigation and Students With Disabilities An Overview of Cases From 2015. NASSP Bulletin , 0192636516664827.
