A Palo Alto school has potentially violated federal disability discrimination laws. Despite having genetic markers predisposing him to Cystic Fibrosis (CF), Colman Chadam never developed the disease and lived a seemingly normal life.
That is, until Chadam’s school found out about his predisposition and inappropriately informed another parent of his DNA history. That parent demanded the school transfer Chadam to another district. According to the CFF, children with CF pose a higher threat of transferring certain germs to others with the disease.
With little investigation, the school complied and forced Chadam to leave. Chadam’s parents sued in federal court.
Which Laws Apply?
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits federally funded programs to discriminate against people with disabilities.
Almost all schools receive federal money and, therefore, schools cannot discriminate against students with disabilities.
Who Is Protected?
A disability is any physical or mental condition that seriously limits a major life activity.
Federal law protects any child with a disability, a child labeled as having a disability, and/or any child treated as if he or she has a disability, even if he or she doesn’t have one.
Although Chadam never had CF, he was held out to have the disease and, therefore, is covered under the federal disability laws.
“Direct Threat” Defense
Federal law provides a “direct threat” defense to disability discrimination. In short, the school would not violate the ADA if:
- The school made a reasonable judgment the disability posed a risk to others, and
- That determination was based on a quick, one-time decision (they did not have adequate time to thoroughly investigate all the risks).
This is not a proper defense here. The children (that had CF) of the parents that complained had already been temporarily removed and so there was no immediate threat. The school had plenty of time to make a well-informed decision and should have evaluated whether having a genetic marker for CF posed the same risks as actually having the disease. Chadam’s doctor insists it does not.
The case is up for appeal and the Department of Education (DOE) & Department of Justice (DOJ) has weighed in. In an amicus brief to the court, the DOE and DOJ, as interested parties, are urging the court to remand the case back down to district court in order to set a precedent on whether children with specific genetic markers can be discriminated against.
Title II of the ADA states employers cannot discriminate against employees based on their genetic information, so it’s likely the courts will find genetic information cannot be a basis for discrimination in schools as well.
Authored by Ashley Roncevic, LegalMatch Legal Writer and Attorney at Law
Comments