SLC obtained the first state appellate order that addressed the federal Education of the Handicapped Act (now IDEA), affirming administrative precedent regarding when a school board is obligated to provide a residential placement for seriously emotionally disturbed youth.

This class action challenged a pattern and practice of discrimination against students in a school for students with disabilities. A preliminary injunction closed a school that the State had condemned as unsafe several years earlier. In addition, special educational programming requirements were ordered by the court at the new site. This case prompted a statewide examination of the cost-effectiveness of segregated facilities for students with disabilities.

When a school board isolated an HIV positive student with developmental disabilities from the general population at the school, SLC submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities (now Disability Rights Florida) that discussed an issue of first impression involving the interrelationship of Rehabilitation Act and Education of Handicapped Act (now IDEA) claims.

When school boards and the Florida Legislature were debating whether to ban corporal punishment, SLC wrote an article detailing the historical perspective, social science, and negative consequences of using this disciplinary method on children with disabilities.

After successful special education advocacy on behalf of a child with disabilities, SLC obtained legal precedent, in a case of first impression, that Florida state courts have the legal authority to award attorneys’ fees under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This ruling expanded the availability of lawyers for these types of cases due to the availability of attorneys’ fees, ensuring that more children with disabilities will have access to courts.

SLC represented a boy with autism whose IEP and behavioral implementation plan were not fully implemented. The Eleventh Circuit, governing Florida, Georgia and Alabama, established materiality as the standard for determining if an Individualized Education Program has been adequately implemented under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. While precedent-setting for future cases, the court concluded in this case that the School Board had materially implemented the IEP.