I do have advice for new lawyers. I would say that in our field, don’t ever disrespect opposing counsel. Those are relationships you’ll need down the line, and we’re all in this business together. You can be a fierce advocate for your client, you can oppose the company or individual on the other side of a case, but treat your adversary with respect because that’ll come back to help you.
Category: Education
Like public schools, public colleges have an obligation to provide courses and content that is accessible to those students with disabilities, such as vision or auditory impairment. When the US Department of Justice approached the University of California at Berkeley to provide audio and video content for such students under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the University took an unexpected step: not only did they deny the request, they also made the currently available material more restricted and constrained.
Requirements of public entities under the ADA
The ADA states, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by a public entity.” As a part of the state of California’s university system, UC Berkeley was certainly aware of their responsibilities.
The Department of Justice wasn’t the only one shocked by the drastic response, which was only intended to expand on the currently available content, making it more compliant for students with visual or hearing disabilities. The specific complaints that needed to be addressed in regard to online classes, some of which had issues such as:
- Videos lacked captions that are needed for those with hearing impairments
- Videos lacked audio descriptions or alternative texts that are needed for those with visual impairments
- Documents were formatted in ways prohibitive to access by those with visual impairments
- Online content was not universally keyboard accessible for students with visual impairments
- Integrated websites and third-party content was not fully accessible to those with either visual or hearing impairments
The vast majority of UC Berkeley’s online course material was compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, via the school’s YouTube channel, iTunes U, and Massive Online Open Courses (MOOC’s). All this content was available to the public, regardless of affiliation with UC Berkeley. However, after receiving the Department of Justice Request, UC Berkeley took the majority of their content offline, or limited access to current students and staff members, without making any significant changes to the compliance issues delineated.
The university’s position is that the online content contains proprietary material that students and staff pay to access, and that keeping the material online for free would somehow diminish the school’s intellectual property. But the issue isn’t simply the cost of access, though that is another obstacle for students with disabilities. The specifics laid out in the Department of Justice letter have still not been addressed, that even for paying students, UC Berkeley is still prohibiting them from being able to fully utilize and participate in the courses they are enrolled in due to their disability status, which is illegal.
At the Gilbert Firm, our Tennessee IDEA attorneys hold all public schools and institutions accountable for following the American’s with Disabilities Act. For more information, please make an appointment with Tennessee special education attorney Justin Gilbert by calling 888.996.9731, or completing our contact form. We have offices in Nashville, Chattanooga, Memphis, Jackson, and Knoxville and represent parents and children throughout the state.
Justin Gilbert, founder of the Gilbert Firm, has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of an Ooltewah High School freshman student who was subjected to acts of sexual violence in the form of “hazing.”
The lawsuit names multiple individual defendants, along with the Hamilton County Department of Education and the DBA of Hamilton County Schools:
“This action alleges violations of Title IX, denial of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and violation of state tort laws, as characterized by their deliberately indifferent conduct to extreme student-on-student sexual harassment and assault and bullying [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][and] history of failure to take appropriate preventive measures, failure to adequately respond to the events, failure to adequately investigate the events, failure to observe Title IX requirements, and failure to offer appropriate assistance to the victim implicates civil rights and the denial of educational opportunities.”
In short, neither the school board, the Department of Education, nor any of the individuals involved in this case failed to protect the student from harm, nor take any appropriate actions to prevent the assault and harassment from starting, continuing or ending.
Bullying, Hazing, Teasing, and a “Boys will be Boys” Mentality
The United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights makes an important point: labels used as descriptors (“bullying, hazing, teasing”) do not determine how a school must respond. Where abusive conduct exists, a school must respond in accordance with applicable federal civil rights statutes. See this U.S. Department of Education letter. In this case, the “boys will be boys” mentality, or the “back when I was in school…” mentality, serves to perpetuate the harm. Sadly, in Ooltewah, the “hazing” of freshmen was permitted by the adults in charge, escalating to the point of sexual violence against young men.
At the Gilbert Firm, we advocate on behalf of students throughout Tennessee who have been hurt because of the negligence of school boards, administrations, educators or other students. To speak with an experienced Tennessee education attorney, please contact Justin Gilbert through our contact form, or by calling the firm at 888.996.9731. We maintain offices in Nashville, Chattanooga, Memphis, Jackson and Knoxville.[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]