Opinion ID: 437193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cognizability of Seismic Safety Claims Under Federal Law

Text: 30 We must now determine whether the seismic safety claims are cognizable under federal law. The students base their claims on two federal statutes: EAHCA, which provides funds to states for the education of handicapped children with certain conditions attached, and Sec. 504, which bars discrimination against the handicapped in federally-funded programs. These federal statutes urged by the students as a basis of jurisdiction make no specific mention of seismic safety. Our subject matter jurisdiction hinges on whether these statutes can be interpreted to regulate seismic safety of schools for the handicapped either directly or by the adoption of state law. In the discussion that follows, we analyze each statute in turn. 31
32 EAHCA provides federal funds to assist state agencies in educating handicapped children. EAHCA conditions funding on the state's compliance with a variety of regulations and procedures. The state may qualify for federal assistance only if it has in effect a policy that assures all handicapped children the right to a free appropriate public education. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(1). The term free appropriate public education is defined in 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(18). 33 The term free appropriate public education means special education and related services which (A) have been provided at public expense, under the public supervision and direction, and without charge, (B) meet the standards of the State Educational Agency, (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved, and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(a)(5) of this title. 34 (Emphasis added.) 35 The definition of free appropriate public education says nothing about the seismic safety of physical structures; the emphasis is on services. Free appropriate public education means special education and related services.... 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(18). Special education means specially designed instruction ... to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child .... 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(16). Related services refers to transportation, speech, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, transportation, and medical and counseling services. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(17). Thus, there is no explicit coverage of the students' plaintiffs' seismic safety claims in EAHCA. 36 We find, however, that the statutory definition of free appropriate public education supports the students' position. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(18)(B) provides that a free appropriate public education is one that meet[s] the standards of the State educational agency. EAHCA thus incorporates state educational standards. The students correctly point out that EAHCA does not specifically provide for textbooks, writing materials or appropriately trained teachers, but EAHCA incorporates the state standards that provides those items. We note that California law requires seismic safety of schools. See Cal.Educ.Code Secs. 39002, 39002.5 (West 1978 and Supp.1984). In light of specific provisions for seismic safety in the California Education Code, there is a strong argument that a seismically unsafe school would not meet the standards of the state educational agency, and thus, would not be part of an appropriate public education under EAHCA. 37 The state defendants argue first that seismic safety is not a standard of the state educational agency within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(18)(B), but rather relates to non-educational standards imposed by the office of the state architect. This argument is not persuasive in light of the fact that there are seismic safety standards relating directly to schools that are codified as part of the California Education Code. 38 The state defendants' second argument is based on a footnote in the only Supreme Court case construing EAHCA, Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). In the footnote, Justice Rehnquist observes that the legitimacy of Congress' authority under the spending power to legislate vis-a-vis the states rests on whether a state knowingly and voluntarily accepts conditions set forth in the federal statute. Accordingly if Congress intends to impose a condition on a grant of federal monies, it must do so unambiguously. Id. at 204 n. 26, 102 S.Ct. at 3049 n. 26 (quoting Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 1539, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981) (Pennhurst I )). The state defendants argue that regulation of seismic safety is not clear or unambiguous under EAHCA. It is clear, however, that EAHCA both funds and regulates states' assistance to handicapped students. Department of Education, State of Hawaii v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809, 813 (1983) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). While the statute does not unambiguously place conditions relating to seismic safety of schools on states accepting funds, it expressly provides that an appropriate education meets the standards of the State educational agency. California knew when it accepted federal monies for programs funded under EAHCA that it would have to meet the standards established by its educational agency, and that those standards encompassed seismic safety of school sites. 39 This court has previously found that physical safety is part of an appropriate education under EAHCA. See Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District v. Sharron B.H., 709 F.2d 28, 30 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that parent cannot unilaterally transfer child to private school and seek reimbursement of tuition under EAHCA except where transfer is justified by a threat to child's physical health); Dept. of Education, State of Hawaii v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d at 821 (educational plan involving risk to child's life cannot be considered appropriate education under EAHCA) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting in part). See also Anderson v. Thompson, 658 F.2d 1205, 1213-14 (7th Cir.1981) (Congress could not have intended a child to remain in an educational placement where there is a serious risk of injury to the child's physical health). Although these cases are not directly on point because they involve reimbursement for safer alternatives to placement in public schools, they illustrate that physical safety, not surprisingly, is considered an element of an appropriate education. 40 In short, although EAHCA does not expressly provide for seismic safety, there is a strong argument that it incorporates state law seismic safety standards. Moreover, physical safety is considered part of the appropriate public education guaranteed by EAHCA. Thus, while we need not finally decide this jurisdictional issue, Lopez v. Heckler, 725 F.2d at 1498-99, we find that the students have raised serious legal questions and are likely to succeed on the merits.
41 The district court also based subject matter jurisdiction on Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which provides: 42 No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 43 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794 (1982). 44 The state defendants argue that the main thrust of Sec. 504 is to provide equal access to state rehabilitation and employment programs receiving federal funds, not to provide any substantive safety standards. As the students point out, however, Sec. 504 not only guarantees participation and access to programs, but also prohibits discrimination under any program receiving federal financial assistance. Here, they argue, the state school for the blind is less safe than other schools, and thus, California discriminates against the handicapped in a fashion prohibited by Sec. 504. 45 A regulation promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to Sec. 504 entitled Educational Setting is directly on point. The regulation specifically provides that facilities for the handicapped shall be comparable to other facilities. 46 Comparable facilities. If a recipient, in compliance with paragraph (a) of this section operates a facility that is identifiable as being for handicapped persons, the recipient shall ensure that the facility and the services and activities provided therein are comparable to the other facilities, services, and activities of the recipient. 47 45 C.F.R. Sec. 84.34(c). 48 The state defendants argue that 45 C.F.R. Sec. 84.34(c) is invalid because it exceeds the scope of statutory authority. We disagree, and find that Sec. 84.34(c) is a valid interpretation of Sec. 504. The interpretation of a statute by the administrative agency charged with its construction is entitled to great deference. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). Where an agency is entrusted with the primary task of defining statutory language, a review of the validity of a regulation promulgated under the statute is limited to determining whether the regulation is reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation. Mourning v. Family Publications Service Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 369, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 1660, 36 L.Ed.2d 318 (1973). Because Sec. 504 forbids discrimination in federally funded programs, a regulation requiring comparable facilities seems to be a logical and valid interpretation of that statute. 49 The state defendants also argue that the students' interpretation of Sec. 504 requires affirmative action which would be contrary to the scope of Sec. 504 as construed in Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 60 L.Ed.2d 980 (1979). This argument misses the mark. The students' contention is that the Fremont campus was not as adequately tested as other school facilities in California, not that any affirmative action is required. Second, Davis did not hold that states are not required to make reasonable accommodations to avoid discrimination against the handicapped. The court said: 50 If these regulations were to require substantial adjustments in existing programs beyond those necessary to eliminate discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals ... they would constitute an unauthorized extension of the obligations imposed by that statute. 51 Id. at 410, 99 S.Ct. at 2369 (emphasis added). We believe this language at a minimum means states must make reasonable accommodations to avoid discrimination against handicapped individuals. In the context of this case, the state is required to make the school for the blind as safe as other schools. In addition, we believe that the state is also required to make such reasonable adjustments as are necessary to make a school for blind and multi-handicapped students as safe as other California schools are for their nonhandicapped students. Such adjustments are necessary to eliminate discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals. The students produced expert witnesses who testified that seismic problems with the Fremont site would pose a serious hazard in a normal school but a super serious hazard to a school of multi-handicapped children. 52 Finally, the state defendants argue that the general anti-discrimination provisions of Sec. 504 cannot be used to make an end run around the more specific provisions of EAHCA, citing Dept. of Education, State of Hawaii v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809, 820-21 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that comprehensive remedial provisions of EAHCA prevented handicapped students from recovering attorneys' fees under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794a(b)). 53 Katherine D. involved a claim addressed squarely and in detail by EAHCA. We held that the plaintiff's claim was therefore not cognizable under the Rehabilitation Act. In the instant case, Sec. 504, and particularly the regulation set out at 45 C.F.R. Sec. 84.34(c), seem to be at least as directly related to the issues involved as anything in EAHCA. While EAHCA is more specific than the Rehabilitation Act as to educational programs, the Rehabilitation Act is more specific as to physical facilities. Thus, although we have concluded that plaintiffs present serious legal questions regarding whether EAHCA provides them a remedy, we also think that they have presented a serious question as to the availability of relief under the Rehabilitation Act. 54