DisABILITY, Computing and the Law: What You Should Know - Some Court Cases of Note - The Research Center on Computing & Society

Text-only Version

Tzipporah Benavraham

Some Court Cases of Note

Several court cases also verify the fact that persons with disabilities have access to technology also as a civil right. Here are some cases of particular note.

Children are particularly of interest to the US Supreme Court and an array of Federal courts. Many cases verify the right of a disabled child to education with related services in the least restrictive environment. These are most noteworthy:

Board of Education v Rowley, 458 US at n.4; (on related services of an FM loop for a hearing-impaired child to mainstream)

AW v Northwest R-1 School District, 813 F.2d 158 162-163 (8th Circuit), cert denied, 56 USLW. 3244 (1987)

Rockner v Walter, 700 F.2d 1058, 1063 (6TH Cir) cert denied, 464 US 864 (1983)

Springdale School District #50 v Grace, 693 F2d. 41, 43 (8th Cir.) cert denied, 461 US 927 (1983)

Most noteworthy is Rowley. In the text of the Supreme Court decision:

to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped children... are to be educated with children who are not handicapped, and that removal of handicapped children from regular educational environments [should occur] only when the nature of the severity of the handicap is such that education in a regular class with the use of of supplementary aids and servicescannot be achieved satisfactorily.

In this, the Rowley decision, we find mainstreaming with related aids and services (such as the FM loop for the child) is indeed in keeping with Public Law 94-142’s intent. So children can and do receive an array of technology for their disabilities in the course of their education. The above mentioned accommodation for the captioning of films for the deaf is a clear example of this. It is clear that if a child in a regular class has any use of technology in the educational pursuits of the class, disabled children should have adaptations for their disabilities as well, so they can participate equally. Hence we see that Rowley firmly establishes technology access for disabled children.

In regard to bilingual education and technology for disabled persons, we find two noteworthy class action suits. One is the Jose P case: Jose P v Aumbach and the NYS Board of Education and NYC Board of Education. 557 Fed Supp. 1230 et seq. In this case, a Spanish-speaking disabled child sought related services for his disability in the school system. This suit is ongoing to this day. In it an array of special accommodations have been enforced and mandated through what is called a “writ of mandamus.” Spanish-speaking disabled children, as an example, are learning Spanish word processing if they are orthopedically impaired by using Dr. Steven Hittman’s Office of Contracted and Related Services to fulfill the need. Several vendors of training and Spanish speaking technology have adapted lessons for these children and are “contracted with” for these educational services.

Also the Lora consent decree concerning bilingual, bicultural special education services is found in 456 Fed Supp 1211 et seq. Under this decision and consent decree, a child blind from birth received Hebrew computer Braille training at Brooklyn College under my tutelage. This was quantified in her IEP and placed in force by NYS Family Court as her IEP for related services. The stipulation decreed that this was a “free appropriate education with related services based on the Lora decree and the Jose P case decrees.” Hence this very specialized educational service is provided by court ruling.

In higher education, we come across the case United States v University of Alabama CA No 86-C1779-S, N.D. 12/30/88, slip op. at 7, 26-27. This case dealt with the University holding a scrutiny on the disabled that they be made eligible for financial aid to be eligible for auxiliary aids. The decision stated that in 34 CFR section 1044.44(d) the recipients of Federal funding are required to ensure that students with disabilities are provided auxiliary aids, including taped texts, interpreters for students with hearing impairment, readers for students with visual impairment classroom equipment adapted for use by students with manual impairments and other similar services and actions. This should be only if the assistive device would not fundamentally alter or substantially modify the character of the program. Hence if all the class must learn statistics on a computer as an example, and a student requires a voice synthesis device to perceive the screen independently, the college is obligated to provide the device free of charge to the student. It is actionable offense under US Civil Rights Law otherwise.

In the arena of employment, the issue of “reasonable accommodation” for the disabled also arises in recognition of the fact that certain “accommodations are needed for a person with a disability to be employed.” Noteworthy is Gardner v Morris 752 F2nd 1271 (8th Cir. 1985), which said a “reasonable accommodation” should not be oppressive to the employer, however referred to 28 CFR Sections 41.53, 42.513(c) for a clearer definition of the meaning of “oppressive.” The CFR reference is in relation to disabled federal employees and what is considered a reasonable accommodation. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act now defines the accommodations of this section of Federal law as integral to the enforcement of the employment section in ADA. It is not considered “oppressive” for the telephone company, for example, to provide a versaBraille (TM) on the computer terminal to a blind telephone information operator who requires one for the functioning of the job. The numbers of the employees in the company, the nature and cost of the particular accommodation, and the nature and size of the employers business. Based on these specific decisions of the court, we have the guideline for businesses.

Back to the top

Go to: Miscellaneous Provisions of Law Relating to Technology and the Disabled

Home > Research Resources > Adaptive Technology > Equity and Access > DisAbility, Computing and the Law: What You Should Know

The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street • New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 • e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org

© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society