Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/student-v-mystic-valley-regional-charter-school-bsea-03-3629/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:35:09+00:00

Document:
A Hearing in the above-referenced matter was convened on, 2003, November 18, December 4, 9, 2003 and January 6, 2004, at the BSEA, 350 Main St., Malden, MA, before Rosa I. Figueroa, Hearing Officer.
Parents’ and Mystic Valley Regional Charter School’s (hereinafter, “Mystic Valley”) written closing arguments were received on February 9, 2004. The Record closed on the same date.
Parents’ Exhibits 1 through 32, 34 and 351 , and Mystic Valley’s Exhibits (hereinafter, “SE”) 1 through 12, were admitted in evidence and were considered for the purpose of rendering this decision.
1. Whether Mystic Valley must adopt a policy that establishes a classroom free of peanut and tree nut products as a reasonable accommodation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (hereinafter, “Section 504”) for Student in order to address the life threatening nature of his disability?
Student presents with a life-threatening peanut and nut tree allergy and must be in a classroom setting free of these substances in order to be safe. Given the severe nature of Student’s disability, it is reasonable and appropriate to establish a policy that prohibits such products from the classroom where Student receives instruction. Parents bring this action to enforce the protections of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. They request that Mystic Valley accommodate their son’s disability by adopting a policy of prohibiting parents of other students in Student’s classroom from sending peanut butter and other substances containing peanuts and tree nut products into the classroom. They assert that imposition of this classroom ban does not present a burden or otherwise interfere with Mystic Valley’s ability to deliver education to its students. Mystic Valley has also failed to respond to Parents’ concerns and requests for policies that assure Student’s safety in a timely manner. In addition, Parents wish Mystic Valley to continue to implement other agreed upon accommodations consistently.
Mystic Valley asserts that it has provided Student reasonable accommodations that address his severe peanut and tree nut allergy. It traditionally develops an Individualized Health Care Plan for students who present with food allergies and in keeping with this policy, developed one for Student. Its policies are in keeping with the Massachusetts Department of Education Guidelines regarding Managing Life Threatening Food Allergies in Schools (hereinafter, “Guidelines”). Mystic Valley’s policies effectively address numerous food allergies and state that there have been no allergic reactions by students in school. According to Mystic Valley, a ban on all peanut and tree nut products in the classroom is unreasonable and unnecessary to assure Student’s safety. Such a ban would be so difficult to enforce that it would render the accommodation an undue burden on the school personnel, and would raise a false sense of security. Also, while quite young, Student understands his disability, is able to advocate for himself, is very conscientious and can monitor his medical condition. Therefore, implementing a ban is unreasonable and inappropriate.
· Letter to parent(s) [of other students] regarding the allergy explaining seriousness; requesting parents refrain from sending in peanut products.
· Review of product ingredients served by Food Service + copy to parents.
· Tables/desks washed in a.m./ after snacks/ meals. Classroom staff.
· Children/staff wash hands before/after meals. Classroom staff.
· Staff awareness. School nurse.
· Staff Training to recognize reaction (symptoms/ signs) of anaphylactic reaction + how to administer Epi Pen. School nurse.
· Bus: Folder with picture of S. + information (504 plan/ IHCP) re: life-threatening allergy; Epi Pen; sit in front seat on door side so driver has clear view for symptoms/ reaction; School nurse.
· On May 2, 2003, Parents’ request for hearing in this matter was received.
· On Friday October 3, 2003, students in Ms. Duck’s class were getting ready for reading time and had finished their take-home assignment, when Ms. Duck announced that they could have their morning snacks. (SE-7 p.4) The student who sits next to Student raised her hand as Ms. Butler walked by and informed her that she had peanut butter crackers, which she had already opened and started eating while sitting at her desk. (Id.; Testimony of Mother) Her snack had not been checked that morning nor had her mother labeled the snack as containing peanuts. (Testimony of Ms. Duck, Mother) Since Student had not finished his assignment he remained beside the girl for a few more minutes while she was eating the crackers. (Testimony of Mother) Ms. Butler walked over to Ms. Duck and informed her that the student had peanut crackers. Ms. Duck then directed Student verbally to go to the peanut/tree nut free table. (SE-7p.4) Student moved to the peanut/tree nut table a few minutes after the girl informed him and the teacher and had his snack with a friend there. According to Ms. Kinnon and Ms. Duck, Student was sitting next to his classmate for about five minutes though Student told his mother that he had been sitting next to the girl eating the peanut butter crackers for longer than five minutes. (Testimony of Ms. Kinnon, Ms. Duck, Mother) When the other child finished her crackers, and cleaned her desk and hands, Student returned to his desk. (PE-29; SE-7) Shortly thereafter Student’s eye became bloodshot and red. The teacher noticed it approximately 30 minutes after Student had been sitting next to the girl eating the peanut butter crackers and asked Student if he had poked his eye and inquired if it hurt. Approximately 15 minutes later the teacher noticed that Student’s eye was watering and at that point he stated that it hurt. (PE-29; SE-7; PE-30) Student was taken to the nurse’s office, where he was assessed by the nurse for a cough and redness in the left eye. The school nurse raised the question of conjunctivitis. (PE-29; SE-7; PE-30) Student’s parents were called to pick him up. (PE-29) Student missed the rest of that school day. That afternoon, Student was examined by Dr. Gebhardt who diagnosed him with allergic conjunctivitis. (PE-14) While unsure as to what caused the allergic reaction, she concluded that it had been something in the school environment. According to her it was likely that peanut butter at the desk next to Student’s caused the allergic reaction. (PE-14) Dr. Gebhardt sent another letter to Mystic Valley on November 10 th reiterating her recommendation that it was necessary for Student to avoid contact with peanuts and nuts, as well as any peanut and nut products, for medical reasons. (PE-15) When he returned to school the following Monday, the teacher did not notice any problems with Student’ s eye. (Testimony of Ms. Duck) None of Mystic Valley’s staff made a connection between Student’s proximity to the girl eating the peanut butter crackers and Student’s allergic reaction.
There is no dispute between the parties that Student who presents with a peanut/tree nut allergy and asthma is an individual entitled to the protections of Section 504 because his condition impedes several major life activities. The question before me is whether the accommodation requested by Parents, a peanut/tree nut free classroom, is reasonable and necessary because of the life-threatening nature of Student’s condition in light of his age, and will not pose an undue burden on Mystic Valley. The Parents are in agreement with the rest of the accommodations made by Mystic Valley for Student.
person who is in [its] jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the person’s handicap. 34 C.F.R. §104.33(a).
the provision of regular or special educational needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of nonhandicapped persons are met… 34 CFR §104.33(b)(1)(i).
The Supreme Court has given broad interpretation to the language contained in Section 504 requiring that programs receiving federal financial assistance provide “reasonable accommodations” to the handicapped. Alexander v. Choate , 469 U.S. 287, 105 S.Ct. 712, 83 L.Ed.2d. 661 (1985) In the education context this means that the handicapped student must be given full access to the general education curriculum that is available to non-disabled students in a manner that meets his needs as adequately as the needs of non-handicapped students. 34 C.F.R. §104.33(a) and (b). To achieve this, the school must make reasonable accommodations, that is changes or modifications to its program, to accommodate the handicapped student. The changes must be made so as to ensure that the educational services offered the student are as effective as those provided to other non-disabled students. 34 C.F. R. §104.4(b)(1)(iii). Additionally, the services must be offered in an integrated manner to the extent appropriate for the handicapped student. 34 C.F. R. §104.4(b)(1)(iv). The changes must not however, cause “undue hardship” on the recipient of federal funds. Bercovitch v. Baldwin School, Inc . 133 F3d 141 (1 st Cir. 1998).3 Similarly, the modification must not fundamentally alter the nature of the program offered by the school. Wynne v. Tufts Univ. School of Medicine , 976 F.2d. 791, 795 (1 st Cir. 1992); see also, School Bd. v. Arlene , 480 U.S. 273, 107 S. Ct. 123, 94 L.Ed. 2d 307 (1987). For instance, an accommodation that caused undue financial or administrative burden on the program would not be found to be reasonable. School Bd. v. Arlene , 480 U.S. 273, 107 S. Ct. 123, 94 L.Ed. 2d 307 (1987). Ascertaining whether the particular modification is reasonable depends on the circumstances of the specific case. PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin , 532 U.S. 661, 688 (2001).
Reasonableness is not a constant. To the contrary what is reasonable in a particular situation may not be reasonable in a different situation- even if the situation and differences are relatively slight. [Citations omitted.] Ultimately, what is reasonable depends on a variable mix of factors.
This balancing of the requested accommodation and the burden it places on the institution requires that the latter engage in a sincere effort to consider viable ways to accommodate the handicapped individual. This way, the federal funds recipient can reach a “rationally justifiable conclusion” regarding the reasonableness of implementing the particular accommodation which would pass muster, as a matter of law, before the court.4 Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine , 976 F.2d 791, 795 (1 st Cir. 1992) If however, a reasonable accommodation is feasible but the institution fails to provide it, the institution may be found to have discriminated against the qualifying individual.
The responsibility to fashion the necessary accommodation results from an interactive process between the student and the school conducted in good faith. Beck v. University of Wisc. Bd. of Regents , 75 F3d 1130, 1135 (7 th Cir. 1996) (quoting 29 C.F.R. §1630.29(o)(3) 1995); see also, Feliberty v. Kemper Corp ., 98 F.3d 274, 280 (7 th Cir. 1996) The initial request for the modification must come from the handicapped individual who must show that the modification is reasonable. Johnson v. Gambrinus Co ., 116 F.3d 1052, 1059 (5 th Cir. 1997) If able to do so, the institution must comply with the requested change unless it can show that it “would fundamentally alter the nature of the public accommodation.” Johnson , 116 F. 3d at 1059.
Mystic Valley argues that in regards to the “reasonableness” standard of Section 504, the focus should be on whether the accommodation offered provides Student “access to programs in a non-discriminatory manner.” In Letter to Zirkel , 20 IDELR 134 (1993), OCR opined that 34 C.F.R.§104.33 does not incorporate a cost conscious “reasonableness standard into 504 requirements for elementary and secondary students.” OCR stated that while the reasonable accommodation limitation expressly applied to postsecondary and vocational education, covered in Subpart E, said limitation was intentionally excluded from Subpart D, which covers elementary and secondary education. Letter to Zirkel , 20 IDELR 134 (1993). It further noted that said regulation does not require “changes beyond those necessary to eliminate discrimination.” Additionally, Mystic Valley argues that the accommodation requested by Parents may not fundamentally alter the nature of the program or cause undue administrative burden as discussed supra .
Mystic Valley argues that the total package of accommodations offered to Student eliminates discrimination without imposing a total ban on peanut/ tree nut products in the classroom. Furthermore, enforcing the total ban requested by Parents imposes an undue burden on Mystic Valley. Mystic Valley thus concludes, that “here, the total package of accommodations offered in [Student’s] [IHCP] does eliminate discrimination without imposition of a ban on all peanut/tree nut products in his classroom. In addition, the impossibility of truly enforcing such a ban in the School setting renders the requested accommodation an undue burden on the School.” According to the School, the correct legal issue is whether the accommodations proposed are adequate to assure that Student can participate safely in school activities with other non-handicapped students as reasoned by the ALJ in Cascade School District , 37 IDELR 300, 102 LRP 34074 (Oregon SEA 2002) Mystic Valley maintains that the appropriate standard is safe access to the school program which it asserts it has provided.
Is a Peanut/Tree Nut free classroom a reasonable accommodation for Student which does not create undue hardship on Mystic Valley?
As stated earlier there is no disagreement between the parties that Mystic Valley is a recipient of federal financial assistance and as such subject to Section 504. (Testimony of Dr. Biegler) It therefore, cannot discriminate against Student on the basis of his disability.
There is also no dispute that Student is a school age child, entitled to the protections of Section 504 as he suffers from a life threatening peanut/tree nut allergy5 that substantially limits several major life activities such as eating, breathing, attending public events and school.6 His handicapping condition has been documented7 and is amply supported by the evidence. (SE-9; PE-1; PE-3; PE-5; PE-6; PE-7; Testimony of Dr. Young, Dr. Orso, Dr. Biegler, Mother) In order to reach my conclusions, I hereby incorporate by reference all of the facts contained in the Finding of Facts portion of this decision and rely on them in reaching my decision. I note that in deciding Section 504 cases, different fact patterns will call for different accommodations, and it is the particular circumstances of a case that will determine the type of accommodations that is reasonable. To achieve this the school is responsible to gather the necessary information from the parents and the medical experts.8 There is no doubt that Parents have been very communicative about Student’s situation, their knowledge of his condition, and the desired accommodations and that over the past year and a half they have submitted much documentation in support of Student’s allergy and the required accommodations.
Parents assert that in order for Student to attend school as safely as his classmates, he must be in a peanut/tree nut free environment. As such they request that other students in Student’s class be prohibited from bringing in or using any peanut/tree nut product. Given the fact that Student is in the first grade (he just turned 7 years of age on January 18 th ) the parents of those students would be responsible to oversee that no peanut/tree nut product is sent in. Mystic Valley argues that it has made some accommodations through an IHCP (eg., having all students wash their hands before and after snack time and lunch, wipe down the desks/tables after snacks and lunch, providing Student with a peanut/tree nut free table, and others) in Student’s classroom which are sufficient to assure Student’s safety. (PE-1; SE-3; Testimony of Dr. Biegler, Ms. Kinnon) Parents argue in rebuttal that daily exposure to peanut/tree nut products denies their son the same opportunity as other students have to a safe and healthy classroom experience, and that the peanut/tree nut free table accommodation segregates him unnecessarily and constitutes a violation to Section 504’s mandate to the contrary.
The evidence is convincing that Student, who is seven years of age, has a life-threatening peanut/tree nut allergy, which warrants the additional accommodation sought by Parents. Student’s allergy is not serious but rather, life threatening , which is the operative term in this matter. (Testimony of Dr. Young, Dr. Ostro) The allergic reaction he suffered on January 23, 1999, was consistent with anaphylaxis as was testified by Dr. Young and Dr. Ostro, who I found to be credible in this respect. Student’s allergy tests show without a doubt that Student is allergic to peanut and tree nuts. (PE-18; PE-19) If he comes in contact with even small amounts he will have an allergic reaction. (Testimony of Dr. Ostro, Dr. Young) Moreover, if he ingests a tiny amount of peanut he will suffer an anaphylactic reaction that will require medical intervention. Every time Student has come in contact with the allergen substances he has had an allergic reaction and at least once suffered an anaphylactic reaction. Given that he has had this type of reaction in the past it is likely that ingestion of even the tiniest amount of a peanut/tree nut product may produce a similar or worse reaction in the future. (Testimony of Dr. Young, Dr. Ostro) All of the experts who testified, as well as many of the documents in the record, stress that avoidance of peanut/tree nut products is essential for Student if one is to prevent an allergic reaction. (PE-6; PE-7; PE-8; PE-9; PE-15; PE-19; Testimony of Dr. Ostro) Dr. Ostro as well as numerous documents, authored by Dr. Stuart Pergament and Dr. Gebhardt, recommend that Student be in a peanut/tree nut free classroom. ( Id. ) Given the life threatening nature of Student’s condition, such accommodation is warranted.
Parents stress the fact that Student and his classmates are between six and seven years of age. Because of their age, these students are more likely to act in manners that are impulsive, careless and sometimes they just forget. Without intending to do so, they may create a situation that poses great risk to Student. The incident of the fall of 2003 is a perfect example. The child sitting next to Student got hungry, had finished her assignment, opened her snack and began to consume it. After she had started eating (while sitting next to Student who had not finished his assignment), she finally raised her hand and informed the teacher that her snack was peanut butter crackers. Student was told to go to the peanut/tree nut free table but approximately 30 minutes later Student’s eye became red, watery and began to hurt him. (PE-29; Testimony of Ms. Duck, Ms. McKinnon, Mother) Student was later diagnosed with allergic conjunctivitis. (PE-14) Since no problems regarding the eye were observed by providers or reported by Student until after the youngster next to him began consuming the peanut crackers, it is conceivable that a tiny bit of the peanut in the cracker may have become airborne when she bit on it and landed in Student’s eye. Ms. Duck testified that on the date of this incident, October 3, 2003, the parent of the youngster who brought in the peanut butter crackers had not sent in a note as requested by Mystic Valley at the beginning of the school year.
Also, Mother testified that in spite of the school’s policy that students not share food, she witnessed children in Student’s class doing just this. So long as there are peanut/tree nut substances in the classroom there is an opportunity for Student to come in contact with them and therefore, a life threatening risk to him exists. The evidence supports Parents’ argument that the current policy is insufficient to protect Student against inadvertently coming in contact with and possibly ingesting a peanut/tree nut product.
Mystic Valley argues that although Student is only seven years of age, as his birthday was in January 2004, he understands his medical condition and is cognizant of the precautions he must take to avoid coming in contact with peanut products. He also knows how to self-administer the Epi-Pen, which is kept in school and in the bus. Parents testified about his awareness of this allergy and how careful he was not to eat anything without asking for adult approval. He asks his parents numerous times if they read the labels on products and is quite insistent on this before ingesting foods. (Testimony of Mother, Father) He often asks the same of other adults and will advocate for himself stating to teachers or other adults that he cannot consume certain products because they contain peanuts even when the adults may insist that the particular item does not. (Id.) Student has demonstrated the ability to be careful when “trick or treating,” (he waits until he gets home and sorts into two piles what he can or not eat) and when he was given M&Ms by staff in the school bus (he put the M&Ms in his pocket and handed them to his mother when he met her). (Testimony of Mother) Mother testified that when in doubt Student absolutely will not eat a food, even a treat, before checking it out.
Having weighed Student’s ability to protect and advocate for himself with the risks to his life should ingestion occur, the fact that he is only seven years old cannot be ignored. It is not he who should bear the responsibility to educate the adults but rather the adults who have the responsibility to provide a safe environment for him. While he may be able to control much of what he ingests himself, he cannot prevent incidents like the one involving the girl with the peanut cracker. She acted consistently with how a child would be expected to act. The results in this case could have been ominous if a peanut product had reached Student’s mouth.
Furthermore, there is a real question as to whether Mystic Valley’s policy regarding Student may have resulted in discrimination at least once. Over the 2002-2003 school year, Dr. Gebhardt excused Student from school on January 31, 2003, a date when Asian food was being served in the classroom. She raised serious concern over the likelihood that Student might come in contact with the substances to which he is allergic as there is a high content of peanut products in Asian food. (PE-10) She stated that Student would be “missing out on an educational experience because of a potential health problem”, namely the risk that he could have an anaphylactic reaction. (PE-10) Excluding Student from educational opportunities is precisely what Section 504 strives to avoid.
The current policy prevents Student from participating in the general curriculum not only in instances like the Asian party described above but also every time he suffers an allergic reaction as a result of coming in contact with the peanut/tree nut substance. Each time, Student loses learning time and is deprived of access to the general curriculum.
According to Ms. Duck, since the parents of other students were notified of Student’s allergy, there has been a significant decrease in the amount of peanut butter snacks and lunches brought into the classroom. Only two students bring in peanut butter and jelly sandwiches daily. On average now approximately four peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are brought in at this time. (Testimony of Ms. Duck) In some instances it was the children themselves who made the request to their parents so they could sit with Student at the peanut/tree nut free table. (Testimony of Ms. Duck) This seems to indicate that Student’s classmates wish to share time throughout the whole day with him and are willing to forgo the products that place Student at risk. In his book The Peanut Allergy Answer Book , Dr. Young discusses the danger for allergic students to be singled out as different. (SE-11) Massachusetts Department of Education (hereinafter, “MADOE”) Guidelines, promulgated in October 2002, recognize that “school policies and protocols must respect the physical safety and the emotional needs of these students”. (SE-10) It is doubtful that the result of implementing Mystic Valley’s current policy is consistent with the MADOE premise.
It is troubling that Mystic Valley has waited until it is faced with a complaint or is made part of a hearing before the BSEA to take steps to provide the required accommodations to Student. In 2003, Parents filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. As a result, a 504 Plan meeting was convened on November 15, 2003 and a 504 and an IHCP were prepared and forwarded to Parents a few days later. (PE-1) Following negotiations, it was agreed that Parents would provide updated medical information regarding Student along with his picture. Additional accommodations were agreed to after the BSEA Pre-hearing conference held in late May 2003. The school eliminated its peanut butter sandwich alternate lunch in 2003; agreed to have the school nurse conduct mandatory training for all staff including substitute teachers regarding recognition of and response to allergy attacks by students with food allergies; agreed to engage an outside consultant to conduct training for staff; and to conduct information sessions regarding food allergies for all parents. As of the day of closure of the Hearing, this last accommodation had not taken place due to scheduling difficulties.
Having found that the accommodation requested by Parents is reasonable I turn to the question of whether it creates a hardship on Mystic Valley by placing an undue burden on the school administration, finances or results in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the educational program.
As a way to help include Student in the classroom activities while assuring his safety, Mother has been volunteering as a “room mother.” She has helped do the planning and food shopping for classroom activities and parties. (Testimony of Mother) On at least one occasion during 2003 she prepared a letter to be sent to the parents of other students asking them not to send any products containing nuts for a party because there was a student who had a life-threatening allergy. Mystic Valley required her to substitute the word “serious” for the term “life-threatening” before it agreed to send the letter. (Testimony of Mother) Dr. Biegler testified that he considered the term “life- threatening” to be “arbitrary”, that it was just a word and he therefore, supported the change in Mystic Valley’s Food Allergy Policies and Procedures substituting “serious.” for “life-threatening.” (PE-4; SE-3; Testimony of Dr. Biegler) Ms. Kinnon opined that the term “life-threatening” had virtually no significance. (Testimony of Ms. Kinnon) They both agreed that Student could in fact die if he ingested peanut products. Ms. Kinnon testified that she recommended the changes to Mystic Valley’s Food Allergy Policies and Procedures to the Board of Trustees, which is chaired by her brother-in-law, Neil Kinnon. (Testimony of Ms. McKinnon) Ms. Kinnon further testified that as the parent of five children who attend Mystic Valley she would be concerned if she were told that she could not send peanut-butter products. (Testimony of Ms. Kinnon) She expressed this opinion “as a parent” during Student’s 504 meeting in November 2002. ( Id. ) She would comply with a peanut product ban if one existed, but did not see the reason to survey how other parents felt about such a ban.
The position expressed by Mystic Valley’s administrators is legally flawed in many respects. First, in reaching their determination as to whether the accommodation requested by Parents is or is not reasonable, they weigh the inconvenience of a total ban on other students. (Testimony of Ms. Kinnon) The impact of a modification on the rights of other students is in regard to education and how the modification would effect their education. Nothing under the facts of the case at bar shows that the educational program of other students would be affected by banning peanut/tree nut products from the classroom.
Mystic Valley’s argument in favor of protecting the right of other students to bring peanut butter snacks and lunches into the classroom over providing a safe environment for this seven year old Student, is mistaken. It considers the inconvenience to individual parents/students over the needs of the handicapped individual. The hardship discussed in the statute relates to the institution, not other children. More importantly, Mystic Valley failed to provide any evidence that the program would in any way be fundamentally altered if peanut/tree nut products were banned. Its actions disregarded the needs of the handicapped student in question and resulted in discrimination regarding access to class activities (ability to participate in the Asian party) and access to education (having to leave the classroom as a result of allergic conjunctivitis). Throughout the 2002-2003 school year, Student’s kindergarten year, peanut butter sandwiches were one of the two alternate lunches offered in Student’s classroom. (Testimony of Dr. Biegler) The evidence is clear that having a peanut tree/nut ban would not fundamentally alter the nature of the educational program.
Section 504 is concerned with whether the requested accommodation even if reasonable, would cause undue hardship to the institution, the administration, its finances or as stated above, fundamentally alter the nature of the educational program.
As discussed in In re: Worcester Public Schools, 6 MSER 194 (2000) … the school system must engage in a process of considering whether to provide an accommodation, and this process must carefully and conscientiously consider possible accommodations and weigh their likely impact on the school system. The school district may not “simply embrace what was most convenient for faculty and administration” but instead must consider “alternative means, their feasibility, cost and effect on the academic program.”12 …Rather, whether the accommodation is so substantial a modification as to impose an undue hardship must be determined on the basis of facts regarding the particular student and school. Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine , 976, F.2d 791, 795 (1 st Cir. 1992). In re: Worcester Public Schools, at 206.
Mystic Valley argues that it has children with a variety of food allergies, which they must accommodate. Ms. Kinnon testified that at present 16 students in Mystic Valley present with food allergies. Of these, six are between kindergarten and the third grade. (Testimony of Ms. Kinnon) The specific allergies suffered by these students were not discussed nor did Mystic Valley state whether any of the students with allergies presented with a life-threatening condition. Not all food allergies are life-threatening. Therefore, accommodations for other students may not require a ban of the offending product. In the instant case, Student’s condition is life-threatening and warrants a ban of the allergens in his classroom.
The evidence shows that Mystic Valley already has a variety of food-related bans including a prohibition regarding fast food, including hamburgers, fries, hot pizza and sub sandwiches made at a commercial establishment, as well as chewing gum and candy. (PE-24; Testimony of Ms. Kinnon) Given the high risk involved here, the ages of Student and the children in his class, the set-up of the classroom, and the number of students in his class, the opportunity for contamination is high. At least one breach in its policy resulted in a Student having an allergic reaction in October 2003. Common sense would dictate that if the peanut/tree nut products were banned from the class while continuing to implement the rest of the accepted modifications, this would add another layer of protection and would minimize the opportunities for contamination.
Mystic Valley further argues that even with the ban it could not assure 100% compliance. This is true, but the result would be implementation of the same policy that is already in place for students who forget their lunches or bring in a forbidden item. Here, if a student is found to have brought in a lunch or snack containing a peanut/tree nut product, it would be taken away and s/he would be offered the alternate lunch/snack instead. (PE-24; Testimony of Ms. Kinnon) No teacher or administrator in Student’s class would have any more responsibility than the one s/he already has.
Ms McKinnon testified that due to scheduling issues, if Student required a peanut free classroom it might be necessary to make the whole school peanut free. She was unsure that Mystic Valley wanted to “go down that road”, although she acknowledged that Parents were not requesting this accommodation. (Testimony of Ms. McKinnon) Under the particular facts of this case, this argument is not persuasive. The evidence shows that Student receives most of his instruction, and has lunch and snacks, in the same classroom. He only leaves this room for reading. So long as no food is consumed in the other classroom while Student is there, and assuming that Mystic Valley continues to implement the rest of the accepted accommodations for Student in that classroom, it will be able to maintain Student’s safety.
Furthermore, numerous schools and school districts in Massachusetts and elsewhere in the United States and Canada have successfully implemented bans on peanut/tree nut products. (SE-11) Specifically in Massachusetts, while some school districts have banned peanut products altogether from classrooms and cafeterias, others have addressed this issue by offering a compromise solution, such as providing a peanut free table in the classroom and/or the cafeteria. These decisions depended on the number of allergic students in the particular school/district, the age of the student, etc. (SE-11; Testimony of Ms. Beyer, Ms. Moriarty, Mother) Dr. Ostro recommended adopting a policy prohibiting peanuts/tree nut products in Student’s classroom as he stated that said accommodation was reasonable given Student’s sensitivity to these products, and because such a policy has proven to be effective and workable in schools that have implemented them. (Testimony of Dr. Ostro) The evidence supports this finding.
Dr. Biegler testified that Mystic Valley feared an increase in liability by imposing a ban. (Testimony of Dr. Biegler) He explained that if said policy were in place the staff would have a false sense of security and would fail to act as diligently as they would without the ban. This argument is not persuasive first, because the Parents never argued that this ban should be implemented to the exclusion of any other accommodation which is already in place (eg., teacher checking students’ lunches and snacks daily, sanitation protocols). Those accommodations should stay in place. Second, this charter school imposes numerous other additional bans regarding food, dress code, make-up, hair style, personal appearance, body piercing, jewelry, weapons, drugs, smoking, etc. For an infraction on each of these, the student’s handbook states a consequence. (PE-24; Testimony of Ms. Kinnon, Mr. Biegler) Dr. Biegler testified that for the most part, parents and students comply with the school rules and that the most common infraction has to do with food. Dr. Biegler stated that “if you have a ban there will be violations” (Testimony of Dr. Biegler) While infractions may occur, Mystic Valley’s own experience shows that having a policy in place is a deterrent and that more often than not students and parents follow its strict policies. Also, as is the case now, if a student brings a forbidden food item it is taken away and the student is offered the alternate lunch.
The evidence shows that personal agendas may have gotten in the way of Mystic Valley’s administration’s better judgment. (See testimony of Ms. Kinnon, Ms. McKinnon, Dr. Biegler) Mystic Valley does not have the best track record in avoiding accidents that could have had a tragic outcome; incidents like the distribution of M&Ms in the bus, not checking a child’s snack containing a peanut product before the child began to eat it in the classroom are some examples. Mystic Valley has been fortunate in avoiding having to address a life-threatening situation involving Student, but a child’s life cannot depend on fortuitous events when the inconvenience of the alternative could significantly decrease the life- threatening risks to a student.
Since Mystic Valley failed to introduce substantial evidence with respect to the costs or other burden of implementing the peanut/tree nut free classroom for Student, there is no basis to conclude that the accommodation sought by Parents imposes an undue hardship on Mystic Valley. Moreover, Student did show that he requires the aforementioned accommodation and that it can be provided. I find that Student met his burden but Mystic Valley did not meet its burden to show that the accommodation would cause it undue hardship. See Garcia-Ayala v. Lederle Perenterals, Inc. , No. 98-2291 (1 st Cir. 5/18/00) cited in In re: Worcester , at 26, 27.
Lastly, in its numerous correspondences and in their Food Allergy Policy & Procedures, Mystic Valley changed the term “life-threatening allergy” to “severe allergy.” (SE-6; SE-7; SE-3; PE-4) In the minds of both Ms. Kinnon and Dr. Biegler, the wording was only semantics. (Testimony of Dr. Biegler, Ms. Kinnon) This argument flies in the face of logic, the evidence and the law, especially when Mystic Valley is not disputing Student’s entitlement to accommodations under Section 504. The aforementioned federal statute protects children who have a life-threatening food allergy, not children with a severe allergy. Furthermore, the fall of 2002 Massachusetts Department of Education Guidelines regarding this issue, were drafted to address Life Threatening Food Allergies in School as mentioned not only in its title but also throughout the body of the document. (SE-10) The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, copyright 1974, defines severe as “…causing distress and especially physical discomfort or pain…” None of the definitions offered under the word severe captures the seriousness of a life –threatening situation in which the risk involved is death. It is the risk involved in loss of life that Section 504 contemplates. (SE-5) Mystic Valley shall immediately change the word “severe” to the term “life-threatening” in its Policy and Procedures and in any correspondence that it issues from here forth.
The information presented at hearing indicates that living in fear of consuming the products that would trigger an allergic reaction has taken a toll on Student. Similarly, the Parents live with a great deal of fear regarding their son’s safety, which judging by Father’s demeanor during the Hearing, has also taken a toll on them. Should Student and/or his family show increased distress over living/coping with this issue, the Student should be evaluated for counseling.
1. No peanut/tree nut products are allowed in Student’s classroom.
2. All other accommodations accepted by Parents shall continue to be implemented.
3. Child must have access to all classroom activities such as the celebration of the Chinese New Year, accommodated accordingly ie., no restaurant prepared food, food preparation not to include peanut oil, etc.
4. Letter to parents of classmates must describe Student as a child that has a “life-threatening allergy” not a “severe reaction” which is misleading. Provide an informational session to Parents and additional training to staff timely.
5. Provide an orientation to Student’s classmates regarding Student’s life-threatening peanut/tree nut allergy.
I would like to thank the attorneys for the magnificent job they did in presenting this case and for the excellent briefs submitted. It was a privilege to preside over this matter.
There was a mistake in labeling exhibits and there is no Parents’ Exhibit 33.
While Bercovitch was decided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the court stated that ADA and Section 504 are basically interpreted in the same manner. Berkovitch at 151, n.13.
The courts have embraced this position in Section 504 cases dealing with employment issues. One such case is Mantolete v. Bolger , 767 F.2d at 1423 (1995), where the court stated that “[A]n employer has a duty under the Act to gather sufficient information from the applicant and from qualified experts as needed to determine what accommodations are necessary to enable the applicant to perform his job safely.” In the case at bar, Mystic Valley is responsible to gather the necessary information to ensure that Student can fully access the program safely.

References: §104
 §104
 v. 
 §104
 §104
 §104
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1630
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.