students with resources “such as identifying — and advising students and employees of — specific administration and staff members who can serve as contacts with whom students can discuss concerns or incidents, or can otherwise check in.”In light of the CSDE’s guidance on this point, it is a good idea for school leaders to consider designating appropriate administrative support staff for gender identity issues in student handbooks and policy documents as well as other ways in which students may be made aware of available supports and resources that schools may have to offer.Gender Dysphoria and Section 504 and the IDEAThe CSDE provides that students who struggle with “gender dysphoria,” which the Mayo Clinic defines as “the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics,” may be eligible for accommodations or services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 (“Section 504”) or under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §§1400, et seq. (“IDEA”).The 2017 Department guidance did not address this issue so it is important for special education administrators and Section 504 coordinators to recognize that students who are struggling with gender identity issues may be eligible for services under Section 504 or the IDEA. Based on the CSDE’s new guidance, educators involved in the 504 and PPT team process should consider including provisions that make clear that students suffering from gender dysphoria be referred to by the name, pronouns, and gender markers that correspond to the student’s gender identity or expression in 504 plans and IEPs.New TerminologyThe guidance introduces the term “gender diverse” into the transgender student accommodation dialogue and uses it interchangeably with the word “transgender.” The new term appears to replace the arguably pejorative phrase “gender non-conforming” that was

During such time, she experienced delays in her hormonal medical treatment for gender dysphoria and was intentionally misgendered and harassed by prison deputies and other inmates. Following her release, she filed a §1983 lawsuit against the Sheriff of Fairfax County, a deputy, and the nurse who delayed her hormonal treatment, alleging violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §701, et seq., the U.S. Constitution, and state law.On appeal, Williams argued that (1) gender dysphoria categorically was not a gender identity disorder, and, therefore, the exclusion for gender identity disorders under the ADA was inapplicable and (2) if gender dysphoria is not distinct from gender identity disorders under the ADA, then the court should still reverse the dismissal because gender dysphoria “falls within the ADA’s safe harbor for ‘gender identity disorders . . . resulting from physical impairments.’”The court examined the definition of “gender dysphoria” from the Fifth Edition Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), noting that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) had removed “gender identify disorders” in 2013 from DSM-5 and added a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” which did not exist as a diagnosis in 1990 – the year the ADA was enacted.

21 U.S.C. § 801(1).This means that CBD products that have been approved by the FDA may be lawfully prescribed and that penalties for unlawful use are generally lower than they would be if they remained classified as a Schedule I narcotic.Employee Medical Marijuana UseMay employers discipline employees for using medical marijuana? It depends.The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act expressly exclude from coverage employees or applicants “who [are] currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs.”42 U.S.C. § 12114(a); 29 U.S.C. § 701(a); Although several jurisdictions have legalized medical or recreational marijuana use, none require employers to permit employees to use or consume marijuana in the workplace or on working time. Similarly, almost all of those jurisdictions permit employers to take disciplinary action against an employee who is under the influence of or impaired by marijuana in the workplace or on working time, even if the employee legally used or consumed marijuana while off duty.Decriminalization, in other words, bestows upon employees a defense to criminal prosecution, not an absolute, affirmative right to use medical marijuana against their employer’s policies.Pennsylvania and West Virginia, however, take a more tolerant approach.

13 C.F.R. §113 et seq.;Age Discrimination Act of 1975 — prohibiting discrimination against any person on the basis of age. 13 C.F.R. § 117 et seq.Although the application only specifically cites to the above laws, it is clear that other laws become applicable as well, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with a handicap. 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.What Does This Mean For Schools?Schools should be ready to evaluate their current policies and practices to assess whether they may need to adjust them in order to comply with the laws to which they will now be subject.Title VIUnder Title VI, schools must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin against employees, students, parents, or other participants in the business.

Employee sued her former employer for allegedly firing her from her job as driver's license tester because of her anxiety disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Felix v. Wisc. Dept. of Transportation, No. 15-2047 (7th Cir. July 6, 2016).

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has issued new guidance to help long-term care facilities comply with anti-discrimination obligations when they administer the Minimum Data Set (MDS) patient assessment tool so that the facilities’ residents receive care in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Those obligations arise under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.) (Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.)

Moreover, the centrality to the Rehabilitation Act of empowering the disabled to engage in economic activity imbues the accessibility of currency with special importance. The visually impaired can hardly be “empower[ed] . . . to maximize [their] employment, economic self-sufficiency, independence, and inclusion and integration into society,” 29 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1), if in everyday transactions they cannot use the paper currency that they possess without the assistance of third persons. Where the basic task of independently evaluating the worth of currency in excess of 99 cents is difficult or impossible, the visually impaired are forever relegated to depend on “the kindness of strangers” to shop for groceries, hire a taxi, or buy a newspaper or cup of coffee.

Section 1983 & Related FilingsCason v. Seckinger, No. 99-11125 (11th Cir. 10/24/2000) "On November 12, 1998, defendants filed a motion to vacate and terminate all remaining consent decrees pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3626. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs requested an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether there are current and ongoing violations of class members' federal rights, and they also urged the court to grant a motion they had filed in 1995 seeking leave to amend their complaint to add related claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. The district court granted the defendants' motion to terminate only insofar as it pertained to the enforcement of the consent decrees within the present suit, but denied their motion to vacate the "substance" of the underlying decrees.

Section 1983 & Related FilingsCason v. Seckinger, No. 99-11125 (11th Cir. 10/24/2000) "On November 12, 1998, defendants filed a motion to vacate and terminate all remaining consent decrees pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3626. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs requested an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether there are current and ongoing violations of class members' federal rights, and they also urged the court to grant a motion they had filed in 1995 seeking leave to amend their complaint to add related claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. The district court granted the defendants' motion to terminate only insofar as it pertained to the enforcement of the consent decrees within the present suit, but denied their motion to vacate the "substance" of the underlying decrees.