Visit our website
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
MIT Technology Review
MIT Technology Review
io9
io9
Techdirt
Techdirt
Knowledge@Wharton
Knowledge@Wharton
Bioscience Technology
Bioscience Technology
redOrbit
redOrbit
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Popular Science Blog
Popular Science Blog
Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center
Genomics Law Report
Genomics Law Report
Science 2.0
Science 2.0
The Guardian Headquarters
The Guardian Headquarters
Genetic Literacy Project
Genetic Literacy Project
Disclaimer

Statements posted on this blog represent the views of individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Law Science & Innovation (which does not take positions on policy issues) or of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law or Arizona State University.

Worldwide Web Watch

WWW

January 25, 2017

Remanded! The saga continues in Chadham v. Palo Alto Unified School District as noted by Jennifer Wagner in her case update.  The case concerns a boy who, as an infant, had undergone testing in connection with a heart condition.  Testing indicated he had genetic markers for cystic fibrosis though additional testing revealed he did not have cystic fibrosis.  He was, nonetheless, removed from his middle school by the Palo Alto Unified School District for allegedly constituting a health threat to two other students with cystic fibrosis (which, if the boy had cystic fibrosis, could have a detrimental health impact on others with the affliction).

The boy’s parents sued the school district under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.  Interestingly, as Wagner points out, they did not rely on California’s broad genetic non-discrimination law, CalGINA.

The district court dismissed the complaint against the school district and the plaintiffs appealed.  In November 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the earlier decision and remanded the case back to the district court.  Specifically, the Court of Appeals found that the school district’s reliance on a “direct threat” defense was not justified in the circumstances, for procedural and other reasons.  Stay tuned for another trial.