Judge rules for Fox Chapel schools in tree nut allergy case
Fox Chapel Area School District was not deliberately indifferent to a former Fairview Elementary student's severe allergy to tree nuts, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.
“On the contrary, the factual allegations support the conclusion that Fox Chapel was working diligently, although perhaps imperfectly, in attempting to accommodate T.F.'s disability,” U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab said in ruling for the school district in a lawsuit brought by the former student's parents. The student was identified in the lawsuit only by initials.
The student's parents claimed that the district violated their son's civil rights during the 2010-11 school year by failing to develop an adequate plan to protect him from exposure. They withdrew their son from the school in December 2010 and enrolled him in a cyber charter school, according to court records.
Their attorney, Jeffrey Ruder, declined comment.
Schwab ruled that the district devised four different plans and made several modifications to those plans after consulting with the student's parents and doctor, but the parents rejected all of them.
The judge rejected the parents' claim that the district retaliated against them by filing a truancy action when their son missed more than 11 days of school without an excuse.
State law required the district to file the charge, and there's no “pattern of antagonism” in the district's communications with the student's parents, Schwab said.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.