What restrictions is a teacher under when they suspect a student of having ADHD? TL;DR; I'm trying to validate my son's teacher saying &quot;As a teacher, I can't even say ADHD.&quot; Is a teacher really that restricted? Long version: We have been dealing with a teacher who has (from our perspective) been resistant to getting him tested for academic delays. When we finally called her out on it, she mentioned that she has long suspected he may have ADHD, but couldn't say anything. She actually gave us the above quote. I've got several sub-questions, but the overarching question in the title is the same. What restrictions are on a teacher in regards to a student they suspect of having some disorder such as ADHD? I know a teacher can't diagnose ADHD, they aren't a doctor. Can a teacher mention that they suspect ADHD? Can a teacher recommend that the student be screened for various issues (even avoiding mentioning any particular disorder)? Can a teacher suggest a student be screened by a specialist?
There is no specific statute in Missouri that prohibits a teacher from saying &quot;ADHD&quot;. There is a specific federal statute that obligates the school district to make accommodations if a student is diagnosed with ADHD (also a state law). A teacher is not technically qualified to diagnose ADHD. Finally, the teacher is an employee of the school district and is required to follow the policies of the district. Those are the 4 legal cornerstones on which the teachers response must rest. The unquestionably weakest cornerstone is understanding the realities of district policy. There may be district-policy type reasons that motivate reticence to recommend testing, but such &quot;abundance of caution&quot; is not motivated by a legal mandate imposed on the teacher, it is more likely to be the result of a fear of reprisals (for triggering extra expenditures by the district). Such a fear is not legally warranted, except insofar as if you don't know what the law says (many people don't), fear is a kind of reasonable response. But ignorance of the law is no excuse. It might be useful to know that it is not required to get a doctors diagnosis of ADHD, so the teacher's evaluation might carry more weight that you would expect, were that a requirement.
It isn't &quot;illegal&quot; but there are negative consequences to doing so. The civil penalties for failure to file a tax return are a percentage of the tax not paid (5% per month up to a maximum amount, plus interest). There is a small penalty for not filing an information tax return (like a 1099) when you have to file one and don't owe money, but there is usually not such a nominal fine for a personal form 1040. The statute of limitation on IRS efforts to audit a tax return or to impose additional tax for additional amounts owed doesn't begin to run until a tax return is filed. Criminal penalties require an intent to deprive the government of money. If he had more withheld than he owed, he probably isn't subject to any realistic significant civil or criminal consequences, but it is highly risky if he actually owed more than was withheld from his paychecks, and it deprives him of an ability to get refunds if too much was withheld (and possibly also stimulus check refunds) after three years. The issue here is really that it is hard to see that the downsides of not filing a tax return are hard to match to the benefits of filing a tax return, which for a wage and salary earning teacher, are very slight (you could pay someone to do it for $100-$300). Also, the lack of tax returns could hurt the teacher if the teacher ever has to apply for credit or get divorced or file for financial aid for the teacher's own kids to go to college. Of course, if he had lots of unreported side income, upon which he has not paid taxes, then there are serious civil and criminal consequences.
In the US, it stems from some statute, such as RCW Ch. 71.05 in Washington state, which starts by stating the rationale for the law, and which are to protect the health and safety of persons suffering from behavioral health disorders and to protect public safety, and prevent inappropriate commitment of persons living with behavioral disorders and to eliminate legal disabilities that arise from involuntary commitment etc. The various laws in this chapter make it possible to commit a person to a mental institute or to undergo involuntary therapy. There is a separate chapter, RCW 71.34, applicable to minors. In general, this law calls for professional evaluation and treatment, without legislating science. The trigger is generally evidence of a tendency towards serious harm or grave disability, with a requirement that the action be requested by a certain kind of behavioral professional. There are not many hard-coded limits on what can be ordered: while RCW 71.05.215 &quot;has a right to refuse antipsychotic medication&quot;, that right is overridden when &quot;it is determined that the failure to medicate may result in a likelihood of serious harm or substantial deterioration or substantially prolong the length of involuntary commitment and there is no less intrusive course of treatment than medication in the best interest of that person&quot;. Along with the legislation cited, there are also regulations which don't require legislative action (they are &quot;empowered&quot; by the statutes), which could specifically forbid a treatment, but again choice of treatments are left to the professional. In some other jurisdiction, it's possible that a certain treatment would be explicitly outlawed.
BC employers are required to give workers three days of unpaid personal illness &amp; injury leave per calendar year. However, this protection only applies to workers who have held a job for more than 90 days. If you have not held the job for that long, it does not appear that any protections apply to you. Note that (as of March 2021) there are separate rules concerning COVID-19 exposure &amp; illness. There may also be protections that apply to you if you are a union member, or if you work in a federally regulated job (banks, national trucking companies, airlines, and some others.)
From what I can determine, there has not been a legal challenge to the practice that reached a high enough level to get on my radar, so it's not clearly prohibited or allowed. Turning to the relevant federal regulations, the implementation of the Fair Housing Act, the law hinges in part on an Aggrieved person includes any person who— (a) Claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice; or (b) Believes that such person will be injured by a discriminatory housing practice that is about to occur. In order to sue a university because they offer sex-separated halls, floors or rooms, a plaintiff would have to show that they have been harmed by being given such a choice. Reading the prohibitions in §100.50, there is no obvious "Discriminat[ion] in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities", and it does not "otherwise makes unavailable or denies dwellings". Cases like McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (a case putting an end to the "separate but equal" doctrine) include reference to the fact that appellant was harmed ("The restrictions imposed upon appellant impair and inhibit his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession"). Analogously, the relatively rare black-only residences of UC Davis and Cal State LA might be targeted in a discrimination suit, if plaintiffs can make the required legal argument that there is harm.
This is roughly accurate, but there are nuances. The real US issue with teacher-led prayer is that a teacher's authority can make it effectively coercive, or seem so, even if this is not intended by the teacher. (And in the past it has often been so intended, by teachers and administrators who thought it was good for children to be required to engage in prayer.) There is no ban on a teacher praying privately. Similarly, there is no ban on private prayer by a student. Indeed such a ban (for either teacher or student) might violate the free-exercise clause of the US constitution. Of course a student should not be engaged in prayer when s/he is supposed to be doing classwork, but there are times during the school day available for prayer. However, public, student-led prayer can also be an issue. For example, at some schools it was customary to have such public prayer at the start of football games, or school assemblies. This official designation of a moment or occasion for prayer was challenged as an endorsement of prayer by the school, and as coercive to those who did no want to participate, but might feel strong social pressure to do so. The point is that the school, as an aspect of government, and one where students are required to attend at that, should not make prayer an expected norm, resulting in singling out those who do not conform. But no US law or court decision has ever forbidden private prayer in schools by students, or indeed by teachers.
While there are certainly statutory and procedural vehicles for sanctions, they are almost never requested or allowed when moved for, and are almost never imposed by judges. Something very severe needs to occur and not just your typical discovery violation ("speaking objections" during depositions, being late with responses, failure to cite to affidavits, affidavits citing conjecture rather than fact, et). It would have to be something quite serious....like misleading the court or directly failing to comply with a direct order or ruling on a motion. It is exceedingly rare. It is most seen in Federal Court.
If the DA decides to press charges (we don't know) and if he is convicted (looks like a solid case), the problems are not just the sentence itself. There might be a probation period with conditions like drug tests and counseling, with penalties if he misses them. It is legal to discriminate against people based on prior convictions. While California has some restrictions on when employers may ask, they can make it one part of their assessment.