So, a Long Island school provides John Cave Jr., a hearing-impaired ninth grader, with a sign-language interpreter and student note taker for each of his classes and a daily, one-on-one lesson with a hearing instructor. Cave’s teachers are also given radio transmitters that amplify their voices. And he gets extra time to take exams. All to make sure that his partial deafness (he has 69%-70% hearing, thanks to cochlear implants) do not negatively affect his education. The school’s reward for this accommodating behavior?
A $150 million (!) lawsuit. (Relax. Cave is only claiming to be damaged to the tune of $50 million. The $100 million balance is for punitive damages.)
Why? Because the school drew the line at allowing Cave to bring his “service dog” (Simba, in case you were wondering) to school. Although the suit alleges that Simba assists Cave by alerting him to “cars, fire alarms, and bell rings” (Incidentally, I am not an expert on cochlear implants, but wouldn’t 60% hearing be sufficient for really loud sounds such as fire alarms?), the student’s primary complaint does not seem to be that he cannot hear these things at school. Rather, he complains that spending the school day away from Simba impairs their bonding and Simba’s effectiveness.
Fortunately for taxpayers, the federal judge handling the case declined last week to grant an injunction ordering the school to admit Simba, on the grounds that “John Jr. is well served by the East Meadow School District” and also on the grounds that the family seemed more interested in suing than resolving the situation:
But Spatt in his decision faulted the teen’s parents for rebuffing offers to attend a district hearing on the matter and ultimately failing to “exhaust” all the administrative processes of local and state educational agencies.
“Instead, they proceeded with this lawsuit,” Spatt said, noting that Nancy Cave invited a news crew to show up with her and her son on Jan. 4 as they tried unsuccessfully to get a principal to let Simba inside the building with his owner.
The family, of course, plans to appeal. (Newsday; Daily News)
8 Comments
I’m starting a pool: How long before we hear the immortal words “It’s not about the money” in this case? I have March 9 in the pool.
The judge said the district provides the teen with a sign language interpreter, a student note-taker, an FM radio transmitter to amplify lectures, a teacher who specializes in hearing-impaired students, and extra time to take tests.
What, no iPod? That alone deserves a lawsuit. By the way, why should a hearing impaired student need extra time to take tests?
“He doesn’t feel that they have any respect for his disability and that they don’t care about him. He doesn’t want to be in a place like that.”
It is unfortunate that he has a handicap but it is not the fault of the school. The purpose of ADA was supposed to be to provide reasonable accommodations for someone with a handicap. But in the hands of lawyers and advocacy groups not surprisingly it has turned into a vehicle for providing the disabled with a club to beat over the heads of any organization that doesn’t provide them with everything they demand. Normally, the school would have given into the family’s demands once they threatened a lawsuit. However, it appears that in this case the family did not want to settle, but saw this as a way of making a financial windfall.
At what point does accommodation become an unfair burden to taxpayers? Do recipients of said services ‘receive more than their fair share’? Are there reasonable restrictions on accommodation?
Wow, I wish my tenth grader got half the highly personalized attention as this kid.
In most states, there are no limits to a school district’s legal obligation to educate “special education” students, and there does not appear to be any consideration of the overall good of the rest of the students. In New Jersey, this is the case. I covered a case in which a small school district had to scrap its art and music program to foot the bill for the 24-hour care of a ‘disturbed’ student (I could never get details on exactly what his ‘disturbance’ was). I questioned why the district had to pay for his room and board, since that was separate from the education he got during the day at this very pricey 24-hour facility. No good answers came my way — only anger that I would dare to question the needs of a “special child.”
David, that was probably an IDEA case, not an ADA case, as the one I’m commenting on reportedly was. (Note that, as in the NY case, there may be state causes of action as well.)
I have no way of knowing the facts of the NJ case you cite, but presumably the logic was that this particular special needs school was supposedly the only one adequate for the student, and the institution didn’t offer education separate from residence, so the only way he could attend was if he got room and board as well.
Hrmmph. After reading Mr. Wilson’s comment, I’m feeling pretty darned ‘disturbed’ myself, and I have a medical doctor (my wife) who can document that it is so. Where’s MY 24-hour care?!?!
And people wonder why I would rather home-school …
“I covered a case in which a small school district had to scrap its art and music program to foot the bill for the 24-hour care of a ‘disturbed’ student…”
And THAT is where I take offense at a large amount of this stuff.
“No Child Left Behind”, for instance, means that no child ver gets to laern how to READ, because there are some children who are incapable of reading.
Now, granted, ANY extra spending on one child will impose some level of burden on all the others, and I don’t find it reasonable to just pitch them out in the cold, so to speak, but there’s got to be a line somwhere…