Atlanta Cmty. Sch. v. Alpena-Montmorency-Alcona Educ. Serv. Dist.
| Decision Date | 17 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case Number 11-14361 |
| Parties | ATLANTA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALPENA-MONTMORENCY-ALCONA EDUCATIONAL SERVICE DISTRICT, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
On October 3, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging nine claims arising from a dispute between Plaintiff Atlanta Community Schools ("ACS") and Alpena-Montmorency-Alcona Educational Service District ("AMA ESD") related to the provision of special education and related services to eligible ACS students. The specific claims are outlined more fully below. In lieu of filing an answer, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, contending that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and that Plaintiffs ACS and Stauffer lack standing to assert claims under the Individuals with Disability Education Act (the "IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq.
The IDEA is a federal statute pursuant to which the United States provides funding to the states, subject to certain conditions, to provide special education and related services to eligible disabled students. Michigan meets the conditions for IDEA funding through Michigan's Mandatory Special Education Act ("MMSEA"), Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1701, et seq., and Michigan's Revised Administrative Rules for Special Education ("MARSE") 340.1701, et seq. Among other things, the MMSEA and RARSE require Michigan's intermediate school districts ("ISDs") to"cooperate" with their constituent districts to develop ISD Plans for the provision of special education and related services to eligible disabled students who attend the constituent districts served by the ISD. Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1711(1)(a) and MARSE 340.1833. ISDs are obligated to provide the special education and related services described in the ISD Plans to eligible disabled students who attend school in the constituent districts. Id.
Plaintiff ACS is a constituent district of Defendant AMA ESD. The AMA ESD receives funding from federal, state and local sources to provide special education and related services to eligible ACS students and to eligible students in its other constituent districts. Compl. pars. 16-25. The services AMA ESD is required to provide, and the manner in which AMA ESD is required to provide those services, is described in the ISD Plan. ECF No. 13 Ex. 6. The AMA ESD consists of the five public school districts and schools located in the Michigan counties of Alpena, Montmorency and Alcona, including the ACS, Alcona Community Schools, Alpena Public Schools, Hillman Community Schools and Bingham Arts Academy. ECF No. 1 at 2, par. 15. The Authorization for the 2011-2012 school year was agreed upon by the local constituent school districts other than ACS that are identified in the ISD Plan.
ACS and ACS's Superintendent, Teresa Stauffer, allege that they advocated for ACS's disabled students and, in the process, have been critical of AMA ESD. In particular, ACS and Ms. Stauffer have been critical of the manner in which AMA ESD provides special education and related services to ACS's disabled students. Compl. par. 38. Plaintiffs allege that AMA ESD retaliated against ACS, Ms. Stauffer and ACS's disabled students by terminating the services it is required to provide pursuant to the ISD Plan. Compl. par. 39. Plaintiffs also contend that the pretext AMA ESD used to cover its retaliation was ACS's refusal to sign an "authorization" that AMA ESD had draftedthat they suggest unilaterally amended the ISD Plan. Compl. par. 37. After ACS was unwilling to sign the authorization and AMA ESD would not provide the services, ACS unsuccessfully attempted to persuade AMA ESD to reinstate the services. When these efforts failed, Plaintiffs filed the instant complaint consisting of nine counts: Count I alleging AMA ESD violated the IDEA by not providing the programs and related services provided for in the ISD Plan; Count II alleging AMA ESD violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 by treating disabled students from ACS differently than disabled students in other constituent districts; Count III, alleging AMA ESD violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by treating disabled students from ACS differently than disabled students in other constituent districts; Count IV alleging AMA ESD violated the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution by treating disabled students from ACS differently than disabled students in other constituent districts; Count V alleging AMA ESD violated the Due Process clause of the federal constitution by terminating services to ACS's students without due process; Count VI alleging AMA ESD violated Michigan's Mandatory Special Education Act by failing to cooperate with ACS in revising the ISD Plan and by violating the ISD Plan; Count VII alleging AMA ESD violated Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act by treating disabled ACS students differently than disabled students in other constituent districts; Count VIII re-alleging Count IV under the Equal Protection Clause of Michigan's constitution; and, Count IX re-alleging Count V under the Due Process Clause of Michigan's constitution.
Defendant now seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (6) or 56. In relevant part, Defendant contends that there is "no event" that actually gives rise to Plaintiffs' pursuit of the claims raised in the complaint. AMA ESD argues that it received correspondence from ACS Superintendent Teresa Stauffer that refused to renew the
IDEA. ECF No. 13 Ex. 4.
Prior to the termination of the agreement between ACS and AMA ESD, Plaintiff ACS had selected certain special education programs and services to be included in the agreement with the AMA ESD from a continuum of options identified in the ISD Plan. At the time of Plaintiff ACS' June 7, 2011 termination notice, AMA ESD had been providing special education services to ACS since 2002. ECF No. 13 Ex. 5. The development of the ISD Plan for the delivery of special education and related services to students enrolled within the ESD is prescribed by Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1711(1)(a), as well as the MARSE 340.1831-1838.
In conjunction with the current 2002 ISD Plan, the local constituent districts seeking special education programs and services available from AMA ESD are required to execute the Authorization to Operate Special Education Programs and / or Services ("Authorization"). The ISD Plan contains the following language regarding the Authorization:
An "Authorization to Operate Special Education Programs and/or Services" shall be signed annually by district superintendents. This agreement outlines responsibilities related to program operation, conducting IEP team meetings, and arranging and conducting due process hearings should they be requested. This agreement can be reviewed at the AMA ESD Office.
ECF No. 13 Ex. 5 at 4-5. Prior to June of 2011, ACS and Superintendent Stauffer executed the Authorization without objection. ECF No. 13 Ex. 6; Ex. 7; Ex. 8. Defendant asserts that the Authorization for the 2011-2012 school year was largely unchanged and agreed upon by the other local constituent school districts that are identified in the ISD Plan. ECF No. 13 Ex. 9 par. 7. However, ACS refused to execute the Authorization that they suggest is required by the 2002 ISD Plan. ECF No. 13 Ex. 10.
As stated above, ACS Superintendent Stauffer notified the AMA ESD of the district'sintention to end the Authorization. See Exhibit 4. The June 7, 2011 correspondence did not provide any rationale for the decision to terminate the long standing relationship. The AMA ESD respected the decision made by ACS to terminate the Authorization and is no longer providing special education services to the students who reside within the geographic region serviced by ACS, except for two (2) students whose Individualized Education Programs ("IEPs") identify the AMA ESD as the operating district. On July 29, 2011, AMA ESD Superintendent, Brian Wilmot, directed correspondence to the ACS Board of Education reminding them that in order for AMA to provide special education programs and services, the Authorization would need to be signed for the 2011-2012 school year. See Exhibit 11 - July 29, 2011 correspondence.
Likewise, on August 1, 2011, the AMA ESD Board of Education directed a letter to the ACS Board of Education further referencing ACS's desire to separate from the AMA ESD and directly provide special education services to their eligible students. See ECF Ex. 12. Defendant explains this letter is further evidence that ACS Superintendent Stauffer expressed her desire to separate ACS from the AMA ESD as early as September 8, 2010. Defendant argues that, as a result, there can be no dispute in this case that the decision to terminate the relationship between ACS and the AMA ESD was solely at the direction of ACS through their Superintendent.
In conjunction with amending the current ISD Plan (ECF No. 13 Ex. 5), the AMA ESD initiated several meetings with Superintendents from the local constituent school districts identified in the Plan. ECF No. 13 Ex. 13. Initially, Superintendent Stauffer expressed her intention to participate in the ISD Plan amendment process. ECF No. 13 Ex. 134 The AMA ESD cooperated with the request of Superintendent Stauffer and rescheduled the ISD Plan Amendment meeting for September 30, 2011. ECF No. 13 Ex. 15. On September 29, 2011, Superintendent Stauffer indicatedthat it would be her preference to pursue ISD Plan amendments by way of civil complaint rather than attend the meeting scheduled the next day between the AMA ESD and the Superintendents for the local constituent school districts. ECF No. 13 Ex. 17. Stauffer, on behalf of ACS, declined to participate with the ISD Plan Amendment process from August of 2011 to November of 2011. The meetings regarding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial