CS vs. Chester Upland School District

This is a redacted version of the original decision. Select details have been removed from the decision to preserve anonymity of the student. The redactions do not affect the substance of the document.

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Child’s Name: C. S. Date of Birth: [redacted]

Date of Hearing: October 5, 2011

CLOSED HEARING

ODR Case # 2231-11-12-KE

Parties to the Hearing: [Parent]

Chester Upland School District 1720 Melrose Avenue
Chester, PA 19013

Representative:

Dean Beer, Esq. McAndrews Law Office 30 Cassatt Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312

Leo Hackett, Esq.
102 Chesley Drive/Suite 1A Media, PA 19063

Date Record Closed: November 4, 2011

Date of Decision: November 15, 2011

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire

 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The student (“student”) is a late teen-aged student residing in the Chester Upland School District (“District”). The student and parent claim that the student is a student with a disability under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (specifically under Section 504 of that statute, hence the follow-on reference to this section as “Section 504”).1 Furthermore, the student and parent assert that the District has failed in its Section 504 obligation to provide the student with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) and that the District has violated the anti-discrimination provisions of Section 504. Student and parent seek compensatory education as a result of these alleged deprivations.

The District counters that the student does not qualify as a student with a disability under Section 504. To the extent that the student is a student with a disability, the District asserts alternatively that it has not denied the student a FAPE to the student and has met its obligations Section 504.

Finally, the District argues that, because the student had reached age 18 at the time the complaint was filed, parent did not have standing to bring a complaint for alleged deprivations under Section 504.

For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the student and parent on the issue of standing. I find in favor of the District, however, on the issue of the student’s qualification under Section 504.

 

ISSUES

Is there an issue of standing regarding the student and student’s parent to bring a claim for allege violations of Section 504?

Is the student a student with a disability under the terms of Section 504?

If so, has the student been denied a FAPE Section 504?

If so, has the student, on the basis of handicap, been excluded from participation in, been denied the benefits of, or otherwise been subjected to, discrimination on the part of the District under the terms of Section 504?

If the answer to either or both of questions #2 and/or #3 is in the affirmative, is compensatory education owed to the student?

C-S-Chester-Upland-ODRNo-2231-11-12-KE

Leave a Reply

Pennsylvania

Montgomery Law, LLC
1420 Locust Street, Suite 420
Philadelphia, PA 19102
T/F. 215-650-7563

Rate By
SUPER LAWYERS
Joseph W Montgomery, II

New Jersey

Historic Smithville, Suite 1
1 N. New York Road
Galloway, NJ 08205
(all mail to Phila. office)
T. 856-282-5550

Disclaimer: Montgomery Law, LLC does not give legal advice until after it has entered into an attorney-client relationship. No part of this website creates an attorney-client relationship. All Parts of this website are Attorney Advertising. The photos and videos on this website contain portrayals of clients by non-clients, re-enactment of scenes, pictures and persons which are not actual or authentic and depictions which are a dramatization.