Cal. Supremes Review Granted: FEHA Disability Discrimination

Adding to its already lengthy caseload of employment law matters, on November 16 the California Supreme Court granted review yet again, this time on the burden of proof in a FEHA disability discrimination case. As framed by the Court's online Weekly Summary, the issue is: to establish a prima facie case under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for employment discrimination based on disability, who bears the burden of proof? Does plaintiff bear the burden of proving that he or she is capable of performing the job's essential duties, or does the employer have the burden of proving plaintiff was not capable of performing those duties? Green v. State of California, formerly at 132 Cal.App.4th 97, S137770, review granted 11/16/05.

Link to U.S. Supreme Court Merits Briefs

This may not be news to you, but it was to me. Merits briefs that have been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court are available online from the ABA. For link to this wonderful, wonderful and yet again wonderful resource, click here.

U.S. Supremes Resolve Circuit Split On Education Plans For Disabled Children

On Monday, the Supreme Court ended the debate in the circuit courts of appeal on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C.A. section 1400, et seq. The IDEA - just think of the punning possibilities - requires school districts to design individual education plans for each disabled child. The circuits were split on who bears the burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging if the plan meets the Act's requirement of a "free appropriate public education." Schaffer v. Weast held the party challenging the plan - typically the parent(s) - has the burden.

Schaffer invoked the general rule that where a statute is silent, the burden of persuasion typically rests with the challenging party. Any other rule would effectively mean the parents can make the plan presumptively invalid just by contesting it. (Neat trick.) Notably, the six justice majority observed that requiring schools to bear the burden of proving their plans are valid would drain "marginal dollars" out of the actual education budget and into the coffers of lawyers. Here's a link to the slip opinion.