[blindLaw] 1. Re: BlindLaw Digest, Vol 226, Issue 13 (Sarah Badillo)

Susan Kelly Susan.Kelly at pima.gov
Fri Mar 24 15:26:49 UTC 2023


Totally agree with Sarah on this.  I have created numerous forms that I use for my fies and for court - juvenile court is incredibly fast paced, so I want to have everything set up with headings I can navigate quickly.  Truthfully, I often have the answer faster than the sighted prosecutors and probation officers.

Susan C L Kelly
Assistant Public Defender
Pima County Public Defender’s Office - Juvenile Division
Ofc: 520-724-2994
Fax: 520-770-4168
Text: 520-262-6137
ADA Assistant:
Norma Garcia
520-724-4778
Norma.Garcia at pima.gov
Secretary:
Andrea Espinoza
520-724-2995
Andrea.Espinoza at pima.gov

________________________________
From: BlindLaw <blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org> on behalf of blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org <blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 5:00:02 AM
To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Subject: BlindLaw Digest, Vol 226, Issue 14

CAUTION: This message and sender come from outside Pima County. If you did not expect this message, proceed with caution. Verify the sender's identity before performing any action, such as clicking on a link or opening an attachment.




Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to
        blindlaw at nfbnet.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: BlindLaw Digest, Vol 226, Issue 13 (Sarah Badillo)
   2. Special education clash: Supreme Court sides unanimously for
      student with disability - USA TODAY - March 21, 2023
      (Nightingale, Noel)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 09:59:21 -0400
From: Sarah Badillo <sbadillo100 at gmail.com>
To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] BlindLaw Digest, Vol 226, Issue 13
Message-ID: <ED6CBF35-C693-4DED-9C7C-1BAFF42B989C at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Personally, I would create a special document for me that discusses the major talking points on each page of the pleading or other legal document. If there are too many pages to do this quickly, I would simply create a table of contents so that I could get the person close enough to the section they need. On the other hand, we have blind attorneys can be as prepared as we wish, and we will still not be as fast as those who are cited in finding what we need. In that case, I?m sorry to say it, but they?re just gonna have to wait a minute. we as blind attorneys are not inadequate or unfit for a specific job just because it takes a little bit longer to do something. As long as we can meet the deadlines, I think we?re fine. Although this world is run by sighted people, and we have to keep up, these days as sensitivity to other things is demanded, so should we demand sensitivity toward disability and visual impairment.
If worse comes to worst, and I had the computer or braille display with me, I will give them the page number, and some specific keywords that they can search for to find what they need. Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 23, 2023, at 8:09 AM, blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org wrote:
>
> ?Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to
>    blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Mapping anticipated questions beforehand: a good way to
>      counter feelings of inadequacy as a blind attorney (Rahul Bajaj)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 16:51:51 +0530
> From: Rahul Bajaj <rahul.bajaj1038 at gmail.com>
> To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: [blindLaw] Mapping anticipated questions beforehand: a good
>    way to counter feelings of inadequacy as a blind attorney
> Message-ID:
>    <CADFycPZ7MuWVLRazv+TcQCU1USoscdGKY652CNB9tS2_8yhP9Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi All,
>
> As a blind attorney, one of my most dreaded moments is when I am in front
> of a judge or briefing a senior lawyer for an argument and she asks, "show
> me where in the pleadings/evidence what you are saying can be found." As my
> sighted colleagues race to find the requisite data point, I find myself
> conflicted between two thoughts. First, knowing that I may be slower in
> locating the information sought and hence why even bother trying to race
> against my sighted colleagues? second, this is the name of the game, and I
> cannot afford to lag behind.
>
> I was discussing this with one of my mentors, who teaches IP law at Oxford
> recently. He told me that the trick in a lot of these situations is mapping
> in advance what points might come up and being prepared for them. Even if
> you cannot locate the requisite information as fast as others, your
> substantive knowledge and preparation will hold you in good stead.
>
> I have been trying to do that more. Yesterday, we had a meeting for a
> particular client in my firm. The aim was to go over all matters of that
> client which we are handling, to figure out what next steps we need to take
> in each, e.g. filing some documents, writing to the client for some pending
> information  and the like. I asked 2 colleagues beforehand what would be
> expected of me in the meeting. And went through the files in the 5-6
> matters of that client that I am staffed on. I made good notes and sent
> them to my senior before the meeting. In the meeting, my sighted colleagues
> could on the fly locate what the next hearing date is, what the
> previous order in a given case stated and so on. I know I cannot do this as
> fast as them and would not be able to do it on the fly. but because I was
> prepared, I did not feel inadequate and found myself up to the task.
>
> Rahul
>
> --
> --
> Rahul Bajaj
> Attorney, Ira Law
> Senior Associate Fellow, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
> Rhodes Scholar (India and Linacre 2018), University of Oxford
> Co-Founder, Mission Accessibility
> Special Correspondent on the rights of persons with disabilities, Oxford
> Human Rights Hub
> Coordinator of the working group on accessibility, e-Committee, Supreme
> Court of India
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 226, Issue 13
> *****************************************



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 17:34:48 +0000
From: "Nightingale, Noel" <Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov>
To: "blindlaw at nfbnet.org" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Subject: [blindLaw] Special education clash: Supreme Court sides
        unanimously for student with disability - USA TODAY - March 21, 2023
Message-ID:
        <SA9PR09MB54543D1582708A891AF846A4F9879 at SA9PR09MB5454.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/21/supreme-court-schools-student-special-education-clash-perez/11513696002/

Special education clash: Supreme Court sides unanimously for student with disability
By John Fritze
USA TODAY
March 21, 2023

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court sided unanimously Tuesday with a student who is deaf and who sought to sue his school for damages over profound lapses in his education, a case that experts say could give parents of students with disabilities more leverage as they negotiate for the education of their children.
Central to the case was the story of Miguel Perez, who enrolled in the Sturgis Public School District in Michigan at age 9 and brought home As and Bs on report cards for more than a decade. Months before graduation, Perez's parents learned that he would not receive a diploma and that aides the school assigned to him did not know sign language.
Though the legal question raised by the case is technical, its outcome "holds consequences not just for Mr. Perez but for a great many children with disabilities and their parents," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the unanimous court.
What to know about the Supreme Court's special education decision
The case, Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, involved the interplay between two federal laws, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. At issue was whether students may sue a school for damages under the ADA when they haven't exhausted the administrative process required by the IDEA.
In the unanimous decision Tuesday, the high court ruled that Perez didn't need to exhaust the requirements of the IDEA process before filing a lawsuit for damages under the ADA.
The decision may help parents and schools clarify one piece of a byzantine puzzle of laws that govern the nation's 7.2 million special education students. Experts have predicted it may give parents more leverage in their negotiation with schools.
What happened with Miguel Perez?
Perez's journey through the 3,000-student school district in Sturgis highlights the challenges faced by many students who have disabilities.
His family says school officials misrepresented the qualifications of his aide. They say that aide, in later years, was assigned to other duties, leaving Perez unable to communicate with anyone for hours every day. And Perez was promoted through each grade level despite not having a grasp of the curriculum, his attorneys say.
Perez filed a complaint with Michigan officials in 2017 accusing his school of violating state and federal laws, including the IDEA. Before that complaint was resolved, the district offered to settle, agreeing to pay for Perez to attend the Michigan School for the Deaf.
Perez's family took the settlement.
His family then sued the district under the Americans with Disability Act for discrimination, seeking unspecified monetary damages. A federal district court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Perez had not exhausted the required IDEA process because he accepted the settlement. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit agreed. Perez appealed to the Supreme Court in late 2021.
What do school districts say about the impact of the Perez case?
Art Ebert, the district's superintendent, declined to address the claims raised in the suit - he wasn't leading the district when Perez attended Sturgis - but he said in an email this month that because of the experience, the district would "gain knowledge, insight, and understanding that will help us maximize every student's true potential."
Schools say they are concerned that allowing parents to sue for damages more easily will inject a legal battle over money into the IDEA process, which is intended to quickly address students' needs. School districts might be forced to approach that process differently if their actions could be used against them in a suit for damages.
What are they saying?
Roman Martinez, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer who argued the case on behalf of Perez, said the court's ruling "vindicates the rights of students with disabilities to obtain full relief when they suffer discrimination." Perez and his family, he said, "look forward to pursuing their legal claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act."
Attorneys for the school district did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Sasha Pudelski, advocacy director of the School Superintendents Association, said the group has "deep concerns with injecting a legal battle over money into the IDEA process and how this ruling may undermine parents' willingness to collaborate with districts in crafting an appropriate special education program for a child. The only thing that's clear from this decision is that it will lead to more itigation for school districts."
Contributing: Alia Wong



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
BlindLaw mailing list
BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org


------------------------------

End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 226, Issue 14
*****************************************


More information about the BlindLaw mailing list