{"id":11506,"date":"2014-06-05T13:02:18","date_gmt":"2014-06-05T17:02:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/?p=11506"},"modified":"2019-01-21T11:06:58","modified_gmt":"2019-01-21T15:06:58","slug":"3rd-circuit-will-hear-food-allergy-discrimination-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/3rd-circuit-will-hear-food-allergy-discrimination-case\/","title":{"rendered":"3rd Circuit Will Hear Food Allergy Discrimination Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"padding-bottom:20px; padding-top:10px;\" class=\"hupso-share-buttons\"><!-- Hupso Share Buttons - https:\/\/www.hupso.com\/share\/ --><a class=\"hupso_pop\" href=\"https:\/\/www.hupso.com\/share\/\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/static.hupso.com\/share\/buttons\/gallery\/share-button-gray.png\" style=\"border:0px\" alt=\"Share\" \/><\/a><script type=\"text\/javascript\">var hupso_services=new Array(\"Twitter\",\"Facebook\",\"Google Plus\",\"Pinterest\",\"Linkedin\",\"StumbleUpon\",\"Digg\",\"Reddit\",\"Bebo\",\"Delicious\");var hupso_icon_type = \"labels\";var hupso_background=\"#FFFFFF\";var hupso_border=\"#FFFFFF\";var hupso_image_folder_url = \"\";var hupso_twitter_via=\"wrightslaw\";var hupso_url=\"\";var hupso_title=\"3rd%20Circuit%20Will%20Hear%20Food%20Allergy%20Discrimination%20Case\";<\/script><script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"https:\/\/static.hupso.com\/share\/js\/share.js\"><\/script><!-- Hupso Share Buttons --><\/div><p><strong><span style=\"color: #800000;\">*Update &#8211; September 12, 2014<\/span><\/strong>. In the\u00a0food allergy discrimination case, <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=15897461779309544730&amp;q\"><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\"><em>TF v. Fox Chapel Area School District<\/em><\/span><\/a>, the Third Circuit ruled that the school district was not &#8220;deliberately indifferent&#8221; to the child&#8217;s rights.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">*****************<\/p>\n<p>A case involving a kindergarten student with a tree nut allergy has the potential to set a precedent for food-allergy-related accommodations in a federal appellate court.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.foodallergy.org\/\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\"><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Food Allergy Research and Education<\/span><\/span><\/a> (FARE), joined by the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.copaa.org\/default.aspx\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\"><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/a><span style=\"color: #000080;\">(<\/span>COPAA) filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief Friday in the civil rights case, <em>T.F. vs. Fox Chapel Area School District<\/em>, in the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, one step below the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p>A federal judge previously ruled that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the school district did not discriminate against the child in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act<\/li>\n<li>the school offered reasonable accommodations<\/li>\n<li>the school did not retaliate against the child&#8217;s parents when it filed a truancy petition against the parents after they withdrew their child from school<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>One accommodation offered by the school was &#8220;special lunch seating at a nut-free table&#8221; that was actually a single desk in the cafeteria.<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>The <span style=\"color: #333333;\">amicus brief<\/span> outlines the need for school-wide food allergy management policies, and detailed individualized student accommodation plans that not only note policies, but specifically explain how they will be carried out and by whom.<\/p>\n<p>We will keep you posted on the outcome of this case. *<\/p>\n<p>Posted May 7, 2014 on the FARE Blog at<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.foodallergy.org\/about-fare\/blog\/fare-files-amicus-brief-in-food-allergy-discrimination-case\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\"><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">https:\/\/www.foodallergy.org\/about-fare\/blog\/fare-files-amicus-brief-in-food-allergy-discrimination-case<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<p>The argument in the <span style=\"color: #333333;\">brief<\/span>:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>details the importance of protecting students with the hidden disability of a severe food allergy<\/li>\n<li>states the requirements for schools to provide FAPE under Section 504<\/li>\n<li>notes the statutory and regulatory provisions<\/li>\n<li>cites caselaw<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><em>To ensure a FAPE for a student with the hidden disability of a severe food allergy,\u00a0 schools must provide an individualized \u00a7504 Plan to ensure both meaningful participation in and meaningful access to educational benefits.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Students who require special education and related services require an Individualized Education Plan to meet these needs; a generic school-wide plan does not suffice.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>See <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/law\/caselaw\/ussupct.rowley.htm\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\"><em><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Central Sch. Dist.<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/a>, 458 U.S. 176,181\u2013182 (1982)(citing<br \/>\n20 U.S.C.\u00a7 1401(18)).<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/law\/caselaw\/ussupct.rowley.htm\"><span style=\"color: #000080;\"><span style=\"color: #0066cc;\">https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/law\/caselaw\/ussupct.rowley.htm<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>*Update &#8211; September 12, 2014. In the\u00a0food allergy discrimination case, TF v. Fox Chapel Area School District, the Third Circuit ruled that the school district was not &#8220;deliberately indifferent&#8221; to <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/3rd-circuit-will-hear-food-allergy-discrimination-case\/\">Continue Reading \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[45,1170],"tags":[1174,341,1172,125,1173,1171],"class_list":["post-11506","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","category-food-allergy","tag-cases-2","tag-copaa","tag-fare","tag-food-allergies","tag-food-allergy-research-and-education","tag-t-f-vs-fox-chapel-area-school-district"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11506","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11506"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11506\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23799,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11506\/revisions\/23799"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11506"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11506"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrightslaw.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11506"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}