4/8/2023 0 Comments Columbia ods notetakerTo assist the reader, the Court's fundamental conclusions are summarized as follows:ġ. Moreover, the named individuals request compensatory damages for the harm allegedly caused them by the university's purported violation of federal law, and by its alleged breach of the promotional promise to provide reasonable accommodations for students with diagnosed learning disabilities.Īfter a two-week bench trial, and an evaluation of the witnesses and evidence in this case, I have made numerous findings of fact and conclusions of law. The plaintiff class now seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against the continued implementation of BU's accommodations policy. Particularly with respect to the issue of course substitution, this class action concerns the interplay between the rights of learning-disabled students to reasonable accommodation and the rights of institutions of higher education to establish and enforce academic standards. BU contends that its eligibility criteria are reasonably designed to ensure that a student is entitled to the requested accommodations, that its review procedures are adequate, and that it has the right to require that a student meet certain levels of proficiency in math and foreign language before it confers a liberal arts degree. The class claims that BU discriminates against the learning-disabled by: (1) establishing unreasonable, overly-burdensome eligibility criteria for qualifying as a disabled student (2) failing to provide reasonable procedures for evaluation and review of a student's request for accommodations and (3) instituting an across-the-board policy precluding course substitutions in foreign language and mathematics. (West Supp.1995), the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.A. This is a class action brought by students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"), Attention Deficit Disorder ("ADD"), and learning disorders (collectively "learning disabilities") against Boston University ("BU") under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C.A. Reed Martin, Law Office of Reed Martin, Houston, TX, for other interested parties.įINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF JUDGMENT Kerester, Jager, Smith, Stetler & Arata, Boston, MA, Jo Anne Simon, Law Offices of Jo Anne Simon, Brooklyn, NY, for Loring Brinkerhoff. Rose, Jr., Rose & Associates, Erika Geetter, Boston, MA, for defendants. Goldberg, McDermott, Will & Emory, Alan D. Rosen, Office of General Counsel, Judith A. Newman, Clark, Hunt & Embry, Cambridge, MA, for plaintiffs. ![]() Paradis, Disability Rights Advocates, Oakland, CA, William J. Laski, Newton, MA, Sidney Wolinsky, Sid Wolinsky, Guy B. Elizabeth GUCKENBERGER, et al., Plaintiffs,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |