In a message dated 1/5/01 7:31:00 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< It's my understanding at present, although I may be incorrect that if the
Catholic Church "runs" the school,
for example owns the land on which it is built,has representatives in the key
positions on the Board of Directors etc, then the ADA does not apply in this
case.
I am going to look at the law in more detail.
I would urge anyone with an interest in this case to do the same.

We can discuss what is ethically correct, what "should" and "ought" to be
until the cows come home, but as this is a legal case the law (and hopefully
the ethical interpretation thereof) will be the final reference.  I have
conflicting feelings about the case.

I have a disability, I'm a student at University and I teach.  When I teach I
take my teaching responsibilities; to actively engage students and to impart
knowlege seriously.  I do not consider that the application of dirst aid is
one of my primary responsibilities in that setting.

When I was employed as an OT I was certified in CRP. Certification was a job
requirement and yearly coureses were provided and mandated by my employer.
That is not the case in my currrent position.

Looking at this from the other side of things, The school has said that they
are not equipped to address this student's needs at this time (now).

But she wants to return now.  What will happen if she sues to return (now)
and has another medical crisis?

The school also has protections under the law and has a right to explore
those protections

Just more to think about.
Bonnie.

    I looked it up on the US Dept of Justice ADA Homepage.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/srchada.htm It states:


The exception is child care centers that are actually run by religious
entities such as churches, mosques, or synagogues. Activities controlled by
religious organizations are not covered by title III.

This had to do with child care centers, but the same principle applies to any
educational institution I would think.

Bobby