No abstract

During the past decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on three cases, generally referred to as the "Sutton trilogy," that sharply narrowed the scope of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) protection. Specifically, the Court ruled that mitigating and/or corrective measures must be taken into account in determining whether an individual is eligible for protection under the ADA. The authors briefly review the Sutton trilogy case law, summarize the ADA 2008 amendments, and provide recommendations for employers concerning policy development that will proactively address the major modifications of ADA 2008 amendment.

President Gerald Ford signed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) into law in 1975. Since the original passage of the EAHCA, the law has been amended four times and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (See Figure 1). After each revision, the U.S. Department of Education has issued new regulations implementing the Act (IDEA Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq). The current IDEA, as amended, is codified in Title 20 of the United States Code (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § § 1400 et seq.). When the EAHCA was being written, the law's authors recognized the importance of parents being involved in the development of their child's program of special education. In fact, parental involvement has been one of the cornerstones of the law (Yell, Ryan, Rozalski & Katsiyannis, 2009). In 2004 Congress emphasized the necessity of meaningful parental involvement in the IDEA's findings and purpose section: Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by-strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home. (IDEA 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (c)(S)(B)) Congress believed that access to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities in part depended on their parents' ability to advocate on their child's behalf. One purpose of the EAHCA, therefore, was to create specific procedural safeguards for parents to ensure that their children would receive a FAPE (Meade & Paige, 2008). See Table 3 for a list of these safeguards. CLAIMS UNDER IDEA AND THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM Federal law provides that federal courts have jurisdiction for civil claims arising under the laws of the United States (28 U.S.C. § 1331 (2006)). Thus, the federal courts have jurisdiction over claims under IDEA. IDEA allows an aggrieved party, after exhausting his or her remedies under the Act, to file a claim in state court or a federal district court

No abstract

No abstract