The full verdict is accessible from this link

Opinion 1: California Appellate Court DID NOT rule about Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) as a disability.

The case is far from over, and nothing’s been proven yet.

As Judge Wiley who concurred on the ruling stated:

“I worry about giving any sort of green light to this unprecedented and unorthodox disability claim. Plaintiff’s counsel was most reluctant at oral argument to admit it, but it seems clear we are the first court in the United States of America—a nation of over 300 million people—to allow a claim that ‘Wi-Fi can make you sick.’ ”

Input of a lawyer:
“I have read this Appellate decision several times and I don’t believe it says what is being reported that it says. I think that people are over-reading the words of the Court.  In reversing the demurrer, the Court said: “Brown adequately pled physical disability within the four corners of the statute.”  They specifically say ‘physical disability’ and the Court’s discussion indicates it was immaterial what caused the disability. And nowhere in the decision does it say that the disability was caused by electromagnetic fields or is triggered by electromagnetic fields. So, the conclusion that the Court found that EHS is a disability under the act is a stretch. The court said she adequately showed that she was impaired.”

The superior court must now hear the case and determine the appropriate accommodations that LAUSD needs to adopt to address the plaintiff’s physical disabilities. One of the Appellate jurists recommended that the superior court employ an expert witness to help make these determinations.

Opinion 2:

Input of an attorney:

It’s true that the case is not over.  The plaintiff must still prove what she alleges in her complaint. 

But as Justice Wiley’s concurrence states, the court’s holding greenlights disability claims where the alleged disability is electromagnetic hypersensitivity.  The defendant argued that even if what the plaintiff alleges in the complaint is true, the plaintiff does not have a disability within the meaning of the disability protection law.  The appellate court’s ruling means that it will be for the jury to decide, so long as the plaintiff can offer evidence supporting her factual allegations, including about her electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

Based on my reading of the decision, I disagree with the suggestion that the cause of the disability is irrelevant under the court’s decision here and going forward in the case.  She alleged that her disability is electromagnetic hypersensitivity. So when the court ruled that she adequately alleged a disability, it is approving that condition as a recognized disability under the statute. 

What makes this case significant news, in my opinion, is not what will happen with Ms. Brown’s case.  That remains to be seen.  The significance lies in the ruling’s ramifications on other cases.  The ruling is binding precedent for other cases in the California trial courts.  Justice Wiley’s concurrence hints at one practical ramification: settlement value.  Before this ruling, a plaintiff alleging a similar claim faced daunting hurdle of no American court previously holding that electromagnetic hypersensitivity qualifies as a disability under disability protection laws.  That hurdle is no more (assuming this ruling remains good law), which changes settlement value of similar claims significantly.

Note: these views are based on different readings of the ruling, and is not legal advice.

The post Differences in legal interpretation of Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District ( Wi-Fi sickness/disability) appeared first on EMFSA.

USA February 23 2021

Is Wi-Fi sickness a disability? The California Court of Appeal just said it is in Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2d Dist., Div. Eight), Case No. B294240. In a case that tests the limits of California’s liberal pleading standard, the appellate court green-lighted a claim of a woman who asserted a disability of “electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” or, as the concurring justice put it, “Wi-Fi sickness.”

The trial court had sustained a demurrer, granting judgment for the employer, a school district. The appellate court revived the plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The court acknowledged that it is likely the first to recognize Wi-Fi sickness as a disability under laws against discrimination. In fact, the court discussed contrary federal court authority, distinguishing those cases by concluding that the definition of “disability” in California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act is broader than in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Apart from the holding that Wi-Fi sickness is a disability under FEHA, California employers should take note of the facts alleged about the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

After the school district installed a new Wi-Fi system, the plaintiff teacher complained of headaches and other symptoms caused by exposure to the electromagnetic waves. The school district initially tried to accommodate the teacher by turning off the Wi-Fi in her classroom and an adjacent one. The teacher said that her symptoms persisted and asked for additional accommodations. By that point, the school district’s consultant had reported that the Wi-Fi and radio frequencies at the school “evidenced a safe and non-hazardous working environment.” Based on that report, the school district did not grant any further accommodation, and the teacher sued.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Wiley expressed reluctance “about giving any sort of green light to this unprecedented and unorthodox disability claim.” But that’s exactly what the court did.

The decision serves as a reminder of just how easy it is to survive a pleading challenge in California.

Source: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=52d76fb5-7915-485b-a3bb-277637a32a5f

The full verdict is accessible from this link.

More on the topic: https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2021/02/24/ehs-california-appellate-court-holds-that-wi-fi-sickness-is-a-disability/

The post Is Wi-Fi Sickness a Disability? California Appellate Court Holds That It Is Under FEHA appeared first on EMFSA.

Contributing authors include Christine Sleeter, Alison Dover, Ruchi Agarwal-Rangnath, Roxana Marachi, Kyle Beckham, Carol Batker, and Kevin Kumashiro.

http://www.care-ed.org

In this research brief, the California Alliance of Researchers for Equity in Education (CARE-ED), a statewide collaborative of educational researchers, analyzes the empirical research on the effectiveness of online K-12 education nationwide, turning to issues of inequities and injustices in online education, particularly here in California, as well as the push for and risks of technologizing education. Although raising a number of concerns about online education, CARE-ED does not recommend rushing to reopen schools. The study concludes with recommendations for policies and practices for engaging in online education in ways that place priority on remedying the inequities and injustices that are being worsened during the pandemic.

​Download the complete research brief on the shift to online education here.

Snippet

Some schools and homes have mechanisms and resources—while some schools and homes do not— to protect students from the negative impact of extensive screen time on literacy development, mental health
problems—like ADHD, screen addiction, aggression, depression, anxiety, and psychosis10—and physical health problems, like motor skill development, eye strain, muscle strain, and lethargy. So, too, with varying levels of protections from online bullying, sexual exploitation, and violations or intrusions of data and personal privacy.

About CARE-ED

CARE-ED, the California Alliance of Researchers for Equity in Education, is a statewide collaborative of university-based education researchers that aims to speak collectively and publicly and in solidarity with organizations and communities to reframe the debate on education.

The post California Researchers Sound the Alarm about Online Education during Pandemic, and Call for Big Changes in Policy and Practice appeared first on EMFSA.

The post Laguna council seeks to address residents’ concerns as it considers new 5G-related rules appeared first on EMFSA.

On February 27, 2019, Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., delivered the keynote presentation, “Cell Phones, Cell Towers & Wireless Safety” for the “Balancing Technology” series offered by University Health Services (UHS) at the University of California, Berkeley. The presentation provides a nontechnical overview of wireless radiation research and policy developments including 5G.

http://bit.ly/UCBoverview or https://www.saferemr.com/2019/03/cellphones-cell-towers-wireless.html

The post “Cell Phones, Cell Towers, and Wireless Safety” (UC Berkeley Presentation) appeared first on EMFSA.

Podcast https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/reinventing-wires-future-landlines-an

The report “Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks” can be found here. It explains that we do not have to be dependent on wireless to meet our needs.

Credit to The EMR Network for this post.

Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks

The post PODCAST: Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks , 19th April 2019 appeared first on EMFSA.