CHOICE OF COURT AND CLAIM CAN BE KEY IN SPECIAL NEEDS CASES
In Fulbright v. Dayton School District No.
2 (April 10), parents’ failure to demonstrate that the school district “recognized an unreasonable risk that A.F. would be sexu- ally assaulted and that [district personnel] actually intended to expose her to that risk” defeated their claims against a Washington school district. Te district had arranged with Colum- bia County Public Transport (CCPT) to transport the student — who is in a transition program — to educationally oriented work experiences. Although the district initially assigned a para-educator to ride with her, they stopped the practice, over her parents’ objection, because of the cost. Shortly thereafter a CCPT official discovered that security videos showed A.F. had been “bothered” by a male passenger. Within several months, A.F. was subjected to a series of sexual assaults that continued until another female passenger notified the bus driver. Surveillance video revealed that
A.F. had been forcibly molested on at least six separate occasions. Although the federal court dismissed
A.F.’s claims against the school district, her state law claims against CCPT, other individual defendants and against the school district for negligent hiring, training and supervision are still viable. While the nature of the harm to the stu- dent differs significantly in Herrera, Moore and Fulbright, the three cases underscore what’s trending. Increasingly, plaintiffs’ lawyers file a suit in federal district court, claiming violation of Section 504, which al- lows a plaintiff to see a monetary judgment for “gross mismanagement/misjudgment” coupled with “bad faith” or “professionally unjustifiable conduct.” Te nature of the allegations in the initial complaint is critical to the court’s decision either to allow the case to move forward or to grant a school district’s motion for summary judgment, disposing of the case. Watch out for allegations that the school district failed to take appropriate and
effective remedial measures once on notice of harassment on the basis of disability or gender, or it otherwise failed to provide reasonable accommodations in response to changing circumstances or new informa- tion. Cases that seek remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are restricted to restitution for some parental expenses, compensatory education for students, and procedural remedies; such cases do not allow money damages for student injury. Moreover, plain- tiffs must exhaust any IDEA relief before filing in federal court. But, as the court in the Moore case notes, a student’s death makes relief under the IDEA impossible. As a result, so long as parents don’t purposefully delay challeng- ing the impact of a school board’s failure to take necessary action, the requirement that plaintiffs exhaust IDEA administrative remedies dies with the student, and a federal claim for money damages may become immediately available.
See Us At Booth #215 44 School Transportation News February 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84