V. Hypothetical Examples C. No Disability-Based Harassment Violation, No FAPE Violation

December 12, 2018 | Author: Mike Dreiblatt | Views: 233 | Comments: 0


October 21, 2014

V. Hypothetical Examples C. No Disability-Based Harassment Violation, No FAPE Violation

The following hypothetical examples illustrate how OCR would analyze a complaint involving allegations of the bullying of a student with a disability who only receives Section 504 FAPE services. 

C. No Disability-Based Harassment Violation, No FAPE Violation 

A seven-year-old student with a food allergy to peanuts has a Section 504 plan that provides for meal accommodations, the administration of epinephrine if the student is exposed to peanuts, access to a peanut-free table in the cafeteria, and the prohibition of peanut products in the student’s classroom. In advance of the upcoming Halloween party, the teacher reminds the class that candy with peanuts is prohibited in the classroom at all times, including Halloween. That afternoon, while on the bus, a classmate grabs the student’s water bottle out of the student’s backpack, drinks from it, and says, “I had a peanut butter sandwich for lunch today, and I just finished it.” The following day, while having lunch at the peanut-free table in the lunchroom with some friends, a classmate who had been sitting at another table sneaks up behind her and waves an open candy bar with peanuts in front of her face, yelling, “Time to eat peanuts!” Though the candy bar does not touch her, a few other classmates nearby begin chanting, “Time to eat peanuts,” and the student leaves the lunchroom crying. When the student goes back to her classroom and tells her teacher what happened at lunch and on the bus, the teacher asks her whether she came into contact with the candy bar and what happened to the water bottle. The student confirms that the candy bar did not touch her and that she never got the water bottle back from the classmate who took it, but says that she is scared to go back into the lunchroom and to ride the bus. The teacher promptly informs the principal of the incidents, and the peers who taunted the student on the bus and in the lunchroom are removed from the lunchroom, interviewed by the assistant principal, and required to meet with the counselor during recess to discuss the seriousness of their conduct. That same week, the school holds a Section 504 meeting to address whether any changes were needed to the student’s services in light of the bullying. The principal also meets with the school counselor, and they decide that a segment on the bullying of students with disabilities, including students with food allergies, would be added to the counselor’s presentation to students on the school’s anti-bullying policy scheduled in the next two weeks. Furthermore, in light of the young age of the students, the counselor offers to incorporate a puppet show into the segment to help illustrate principles that might otherwise be too abstract for such a young audience. In the weeks that follow, the student shows no adverse changes in academic performance or behavior, and when asked by her teacher and the school counselor about how she is doing, she indicates that the bullying has stopped. 

In this example, based on the school’s appropriate response to the incidents of bullying, OCR would not find a disability-based harassment violation under Section 504. The bullying of the student on account of her food allergy to peanuts was based on the student’s disability. Moreover, the physically threatening and humiliating conduct directed at her was sufficiently serious to create a hostile environment by limiting her ability to participate in and benefit from the school’s education program when she was near the classmates who bullied her in the lunchroom and on the bus. School personnel, however, did not tolerate the conduct and acted quickly to investigate the incidents, address the behavior of the classmates involved in the conduct, ensure that there were no residual effects on the student, and coordinate to promote greater awareness among students about the school’s anti-bullying policy. By taking prompt and reasonable steps to address the hostile environment, eliminate its effects, and prevent it from recurring, the school met its obligations under Section 504. 

OCR also would not find a FAPE violation under Section 504 on these facts. Once the school became aware that the student feared attending lunch and riding the bus as a result of the bullying she was experiencing, the school was on notice that the effects of the bullying may have affected her receipt of FAPE. This was sufficient to trigger the school’s additional obligation to determine whether, and to what extent, the bullying affected the student’s access to FAPE and take any actions, including addressing the bullying and providing new or different services, required to ensure the student continued receiving FAPE. By promptly holding a Section 504 meeting to assess whether the school should consider any changes to the student’s services in light of the bullying, the school met its independent legal obligation to provide FAPE under Section 504.


Next Blog:

VI. Conclusion

Post Comment

Fill out the information below to post a comment