It is important to note that Honig v. Doe case was important in bringing clarity to the Education of the Handicapped Act. Two students with disabilities, John Doe and Jack Smith, were suspended from their school indefinitely due to behavioral problems. Subsequently, they sued the schoolâs decision on mootness and âstay-putâ provisions of the act. The key findings include that mootness is determined by age, whereas the âstay-putâ prohibits school authorities from excluding children with disabilities.
The first major finding of the Honig v. Doe case was that claimants in the age range of three to 21 are not moot under the Education of the Handicapped Act. It is stated that âsince the Act covered individuals from ages 3 to 21, the claim of a 24-year-old who was no longer in school was moot, but that the claim of a 20-year-old was not mootâ (âHonig v. Doe,â n.d., para. 6). In other words, the age factor is what determines the mootness of a case. The second finding is that the âstay-putâ provision prohibits local and state school authorities from excluding disabled children, such as suspension, âeven for dangerous or disruptive conduct resulting from their disabilitiesâ (âHonig v. Doe,â n.d., para. 6). The opposition argued that the decision endangered able-bodied studentsâ safety (âHonig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305.,â 1988). The impact was that state and federal regulations and school district policies became more inclusive educational rights of disabled students.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the âstay-putâ prohibits school authorities from excluding children with disabilities, and the mootness of the Education of the Handicapped Act is determined by age. Thus, if a claimant is between three and 21 years old, then the claim is not moot. Despite the opposition and concerns, the decision was a major step towards inclusion and equity with respect to children with disabilities.
References
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305. (1988). Web.
Honig v. Doe. (n.d.). Web.