Skip to main content

Justice Department Reaches ADA Settlement with Fort Wayne, Indiana, Day Care Center Regarding Children with Diabetes

WASHINGTON – Pine Hills Kiddie Garden of Fort Wayne, Ind., will take necessary steps to ensure that a child’s diabetes care is integrated into the usual routine of its day care center and programs as part of a settlement to resolve allegations that it discriminated on the basis of disability, the Justice Department announced today.

The settlement resolves a complaint filed by a parent of a six-year-old girl with Type I diabetes, alleging that Pine Hills refused in 2007 to permit the girl to participate in field trips as part of the summer program unless she was accompanied by a parent or a medically trained person hired by the parent. The complaint was filed under title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

"Parents of children with Type I diabetes deserve the comfort of knowing that their children will not be subjected to discrimination because of their illness. A day care center is required to evaluate and make reasonable modifications for children with diabetes," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "We commend Pine Hills Kiddie Garden for working cooperatively with the Department on today’s settlement, which will ensure equal opportunity for children with diabetes in the day care center."

Under the settlement, Pine Hills agrees to provide all children with diabetes with an equal opportunity to attend the center and to participate in all programs, services or activities. It will evaluate the application of each child with diabetes applying to attend the center, on a case by case basis, and will make reasonable modifications to permit children with diabetes to attend the center. Modifications include, but are not limited to, supervising and monitoring of children with diabetes while using blood tests, insulin pumps, syringes or other diabetes related equipment or while consuming of food while participating in a program. Pine Hills also agrees to pay $10,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in civil penalties.

Under the settlement, Pine Hills submits that it has made and continues to make a practice of many of the policies outlined in the agreement and that it incorporates additional policies suggested by the Justice Department.

People interested in finding out more about the ADA or the agreement can call the Justice Department's toll-free ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 or (800) 514-0383 (TTY) or access its ADA Web site at www.ada.gov.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more