Bd. of Educ. v. Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities
| Decision Date | 06 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | SC 20696 |
| Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEWHAVEN v. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & OPPORTUNITIES ET AL. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Argued April 27, 2022
Procedural History
Appeal from the decision of the human rights referee for the named defendant, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities awarding damages to the claimant in an action alleging discrimination by the plaintiff, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain, where the court, Cohn, J., rendered judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Proloy K. Das, with whom was Emily McDonough Souza, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Michael E. Roberts, human rights attorney, with whom was Megan K. Grant, human rights attorney, for the appellee (named defendant).
Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn Ecker and Keller, Js.
A was a student with disabilities enrolled in the John C. Daniels Interdistrict Magnet School of International Communication (John Daniels), a public school located in New Haven. His father, M, filed a complaint with the named defendant, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), alleging that the plaintiff, the Board of Education of the City of New Haven (board), had discriminated against A on the basis of his disabilities by unilaterally withdrawing him from the school. A human rights referee concluded that the board had discriminated against A on the basis of his disabilities and awarded damages of $25,000. The board appealed to the trial court, which dismissed the appeal. The board then filed this appeal,[1]claiming that the trial court incorrectly determined that (1) the commission had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate A's claim, pursuant to General Statutes § 46a-58 (a),[2] that the board had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; (2) the commission had subject matter jurisdiction over A's claims when M failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.; and (3) the issue of whether the referee had incorrectly concluded that a public school is a place of public accommodation for purposes of General Statutes § 46a-64 (a)[3] was not reviewable. We reject the first two claims and conclude that the third claim is not reviewable. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
The record reveals the following facts that were found by the commission or that are undisputed. In February, 2010, M submitted an application for A to attend kindergarten at John Daniels. John Daniels is open to all state residents, and admission is determined by a lottery system. See General Statutes § 10-66bb (d) (8) (D) ().
A was diagnosed with several mental and cognitive disorders, including Asperger's syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder and "anxiety [disorder not otherwise specified]." As the result of these disorders, A had difficulty coping with large groups of children and with overstimulating or chaotic environments. His symptoms included "inconsistent regression in normal development, poor social skills, sensory issues, difficulty managing feelings, auditory and visual hallucinations, challenges with concentration and focus, poor processing skills and difficulty with transitions." A also physically manifested these disorders in a variety of ways, including shaking his hands up and down, making unusual facial expressions and using distorted speech.
A was accepted as a student at John Daniels and began attending in September, 2010. Because of his various disorders, A was enrolled as a special education student entitled under the IDEA to an individualized education plan and special accommodation services. Between September, 2010, and March, 2011, A's parents sought and received a number of accommodations for him, including transportation to and from school on a smaller school bus and an additional snack during the school day.
On September 16, 2010, M sent an email to the principal of John Daniels, Gina Wells, in which he thanked her for informing him about the "buddy" who had been assigned to A and indicating that, if Wells had provided the information earlier, much confusion and misunderstanding could have been avoided. Wells forwarded the email to the assistant principal, Marlene Baldizon, with the comment, "I will not be able to contain myself much longer-you may have to take over, Marlene." In November, 2010, the school determined, against the wishes of A's parents, that A would no longer be designated as a special education student but would be subject to a "§ 504" plan.[4]
On March 29, 2011, A was injured at school when another child pulled on his clothing and he fell. A's mother took him to the emergency department at Yale New Haven Hospital, where it was determined that he had suffered a concussion. Upon his discharge, A's parents were given a "return to school certificate," indicating that he could return to school when he was symptom free for twenty-four hours. In the days following his injury, A continued to have symptoms, including disorientation, malaise and headaches. A's parents spoke to his primary care physician, who recommended that he stay at home until he was symptom free.
When A failed to return to school, Wells and the board's truancy department made several phone calls to his parents. On April 8, 2011, the board requested a "student absence inquiry" report, which indicated that, during the school year, A had had sixteen excused absences and ten unexcused absences. Eight of the unexcused absences occurred after A's injury. After obtaining the report, the board sent a habitual truancy notice to A's parents, which indicated that a copy of the notice would be sent to court. M retained an attorney, Patricia Kaplan, to represent him in the truancy proceeding.
Meanwhile, A's parents had requested a planning and placement team meeting to discuss whether A was eligible for special education services. On April 8, 2011, Lou Faiella, a certified legal intern with the Quinnipiac Law School legal clinic, which represented A and his parents, sent an email to Kathleen Cassell, aboard administrator, requesting that the meeting be cancelled because A's parents had decided that "this [was] not the route that they would like to take at this time."[5] On April 13, 2011, Amy Vatner, an advocate with African Caribbean American Parents of Children with Disabilities, sent an email to Wells and Maralyn Klatzkin, a special education teacher, indicating that A's parents would be filing a request for mediation with the state Department of Education. Wells forwarded the email to Baldizon, stating in her email that On April 14, 2011, a request for a mediation to discuss A's eligibility for special education and for an alternative educational placement in light of his concussion was submitted to the state Department of Education's Bureau of Special Education.
A planning and placement team meeting took place at the office of the board's superintendent on May 5, 2011. M, Cassell, Klatzkin, Lorna Link, a school psychologist, Kasey Masa, a teacher, Donna Kosiorowski, a nurse and § 504 coordinator, Michelle Laubin, attorney for the board, Wells, Virginia Bauer, assistant director of West Haven[6] pupil services, Typhanie Jackson, the board's director of student services, and Vatner attended the meeting. M indicated that he was concerned that A was no longer designated as a special education student and, therefore, was no longer entitled to an individualized education plan. He also stated that A would not be returning to school until he was cleared to do so by his physicians and expressed an interest in obtaining homebound services for A. When M was questioned about A's continued absence from school, he attempted to present a handwritten letter from A's physician regarding his medical status and his diagnosis of post-concussion syndrome. The board declined to accept the letter because, according to the planning and placement team, it was illegible, undated, and not on the physician's letterhead. Upon leaving the meeting, M understood that he needed to obtain another letter from A's physician and that A would return to John Daniels as soon as his physicians medically cleared him.
Immediately after the meeting, however, Jackson, acting on behalf of the New Haven board, obtained a form for withdrawal from John Daniels, filled it out with A's information and signed it. Although the form had signature lines for the parents of the withdrawing student, neither of A's parents was asked to sign it. The board did not notify A's parents that he had been withdrawn.
On May 16,2011, A's physician prepared a typewritten note indicating that A was still having symptoms from his concussion and recommending that he return to school at the beginning of the next school year. M faxed the note to Kaplan, who forwarded it to John Daniels on or about June 2, 2011.
Later in June, 2011, M learned that A had been withdrawn from John Daniels when he stopped by the board's office and an unidentified woman informed him of the withdrawal. He also was...
To continue reading
Request your trial