법무법인바른 사이트는 IE11이상 혹은 타 브라우저에서
정상적으로 구동되도록 구현되었습니다.
익스플로러 10 이하버전에서는 브라우저 버전 업데이트 혹은
엣지, 크롬, 사파리등의 다른 브라우저로 접속을 부탁드립니다. 감사합니다.
익스플로러 10 이하버전에서는 브라우저 버전 업데이트 혹은
엣지, 크롬, 사파리등의 다른 브라우저로 접속을 부탁드립니다. 감사합니다.
2024-02-29
2) Background of the case : The victim is a child suffering from developmental disabilities. The victim child was having difficulty participating in class, such as running out of the classroom or not being able to get to the toilet on his own. He also had to leave early in the afternoon to receive treatment at an outside hospital. (1) The victim’s parents told the school that they would hire an assistant teacher (TA) at their own expense to control the child’s unexpected behaviors during class. (2) They also helped the child receive various hospital treatments to resolve the urinary problem and reported the child's improvement to the school in detail. (3) They explained to the school that an external treatment schedule was inevitable for the treatment of developmental disabilities. Nevertheless, S International School unilaterally refused to allow the child, who was on leave from school to deal with his disabilities, to return to school and forced the child to drop out.
3) Litigation : Barun Law, on behalf of the victim child, filed a petition with the National Human Rights Commission, to issue an order to correct their acts against S International School and its principals and to file a charge against the principals with the prosecutor’s office for violating the Anti-Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities Act and the Special Education Act.
On November 1, 2023, the National Human Rights Commission issued a recommendation to S International School to take a disciplinary action against the principals and to correct the alleged discriminatory acts, and filed a charge against the principals with the Prosecutor General.
The National Human Rights Commission found the acts of S International School unilaterally refusing to allow the victimized child to return to school and to be accompanied by an assistant teacher, who is essential for the victimized child’s school life, to be discriminatory without justifiable grounds. It was also judged that not allowing the child to have an assistant teacher is an act of discrimination under Article 4 of the Anti-Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities Act. Based on the findings, the National Human Rights Commission recommended S International School and its principals to correct their discriminatory practices, and took action to report the principals to the prosecution in accordance with the Anti-Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities Act and the Special Education Act.
We classified the difficulties that the victim was experiencing into three categories (unusual behavior during class, toilet issue, and explained what solutions the parents of the child had proposed to the school to deal with the difficulties before the National Human Rights Commission. We pointed out that although the solutions and explanations presented by the victim child (e.g. employment of a TA at their own expense, hospital treatment, explanation of the inevitability of an external treatment schedule) were reasonable, the principals of S International School rejected all of them without any special grounds, and rejected the child’s return to school, forcing him to drop out of school. We organized all the vast amount of emails, consultations, and video conferences exchanged between the victim child and S International School and delivered them to the National Human Rights Commission. We made it clear that S International School principals committed acts of discrimination that cannot be justified.
The decision of the National Human Rights Commission in this case confirms that schools may not restrict or exclude students with disabilities from participating in classes without reasonable grounds, and have obligations to actively seek and provide the means to provide necessary convenience to students with disabilities under the Anti-Discrimination Act and the Special Education Act. It is significant in that the decision once again emphasizes that, in principle, students with disabilities should be guaranteed the same rights to study and study as general students, and that schools have an affirmative obligation to guarantee the rights of students with disabilities. In particular, given that this case is involved by an international school, the decision is meaningful in that it confirms that since international schools constitute schools at all levels subject to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, they have the same obligation as domestic schools to guarantee the right to education and learning for students with disabilities.
