Braden v. Mountain Home Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 18 October 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:10–CV–03118.
• Parties: Scott BRADEN, as parent and next friend of M, Plaintiff v. MOUNTAIN HOME SCHOOL DISTRICT; Charles Scriber, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent; Debbie Atkinson, individually and as Director of Special Education; Michelle McWilliams, individually and in her official capacity as Principal of Pinkston Middle School; Linda White, individually and as Vice Principal of Pinkston Middle School; and Cassie Fowler, individually and in her official capacity as Teacher of the Alternative Learning Education Classroom, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas

903 F.Supp.2d 729

Scott BRADEN, as parent and next friend of M, Plaintiff

v.MOUNTAIN HOME SCHOOL DISTRICT; Charles Scriber, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent; Debbie Atkinson, individually and as Director of Special Education; Michelle McWilliams, individually and in her official capacity as Principal of Pinkston Middle School; Linda White, individually and as Vice Principal of Pinkston Middle School; and Cassie Fowler, individually and in her official capacity as Teacher of the Alternative Learning Education Classroom, Defendants.

Case No. 3:10–CV–03118.

United States District Court,

W.D. Arkansas,

Harrison Division.

Oct. 18, 2012.

Nader G. Afsordeh, Niswanger Law Firm, Theresa L. Caldwell, Caldwell Law Office, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff.

W. Paul Blume, Attorney at Law, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

P.K. HOLMES, III, Chief Judge.

Currently before the Court are Defendants Mountain Home School District, Charles Scriber, Debbie Atkinson, Michelle McWilliams, Linda White, and CassieFowler's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) and supporting documents, Plaintiff Scott Braden's Response (Doc. 25) and supporting documents, and Defendants' Reply (Doc. 31). Defendants move for summary judgment as to all of Plaintiff's claims, including claims based on violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as well as state law claims for negligence, intentional discrimination, and outrage. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

I. Background

Plaintiff Scott Braden, on behalf of his minor child M, brings various federal and state law claims against Defendant Mountain Home School District, where M was enrolled as a student at all times relevant to the facts asserted in the Complaint. Plaintiff also brings claims against certain persons employed by Mountain Home School District (“MHSD”), including Charles Scriber, the school Superintendent; Debbie Atkinson, Director of Special Education; Michelle McWilliams, Principal of Pinkston Middle School; Linda White, Vice Principal of Pinkston Middle School; and Cassie Fowler, M's teacher.

For purposes of summary judgment, the Court views the facts in a light most favorable to the non-movant, Plaintiff. Canada v. Union Elec. Co., 135 F.3d 1211, 1212–13 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Buller v. Buechler, 706 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir.1983)). M was first enrolled as a third grade student at MHSD on November 21, 2007, shortly after M and his father relocated to Arkansas from Colorado. Upon enrolling M in school, M's father advised MHSD that M had been previously diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Reactive Attachment Disorder Syndrome. M had been receiving special education in a mainstreamed classroom setting in Colorado to address these conditions. M's father also advised MHSD that he and his ex-wife had adopted M when M was three years old, and that prior to adoption, M had suffered sexual abuse while in foster care.

MHSD received a copy of M's Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) and behavior plan from his previous school in Colorado; however, after reviewing M's records, MHSD officials decided that M was not eligible for special education services. Instead, on December 5, 2007, during M's third grade year, MHSD placed M in Nelson Wilks Elementary School's Pathways to Success classroom, an Alternative Learning Environment Classroom (“ALEC”). M's father was not happy about the placement. He requested instead that M receive behavior therapy and counseling through special education services, similar to those M received in Colorado, and placement in a mainstreamed classroom environment, rather than the self-contained ALEC. MHSD did not accede to M's father's wishes and kept M in the ALEC for the remainder of the school year.

At the beginning of M's fourth grade year, on August 29, 2008, M underwent a comprehensive evaluation conducted by MHSD. After the evaluation was completed, MHSD advised that M did not qualify for special education services because M's disabilities did not adversely impact his educational performance. M was promoted to the fourth grade, but M's father was told that M would be placed in an ALEC at Pinkston Middle School, along with fifth, sixth, and seventh graders, rather than in an elementary school classroom with other fourth graders M's age.¹ M's father once again objected to the placement, both because M would again receive his education in an ALEC and because M would be schooled with children who were older than M and potentially more socially and behaviorally advanced than M. M's father was worried that, considering M's emotional and behavioral disorders and past history of abuse, M was in danger of being bullied and easily influenced by older students in the middle school ALEC.

As the school year progressed, M's behavior apparently worsened and M's father continued to object to his placement. According to M's father, M was suspended multiple times and given detention for apparently escalating behavioral issues during the months of September and October of 2008. In February of 2009, a new student, GL, entered M's classroom. Over the course of the next several months of school, from approximately February to May of 2009, GL began exhibiting various inappropriate sexual behaviors in class, including periodically exposing his genitalia in class, simulating masturbation, and, on one occasion, placing his penis on the classroom overhead projector in front of the other students. M's father alleges that a teacher was at all times present in the classroom when these incidents involving GL occurred, and the incidents were reported to the teachers by students. M's father further alleges that that no teacher or other MHSD official took meaningful action to stop GL's behaviors from continuing and to protect M even though MHSD knew that M was (1) an emotionally disturbed former victim of sexual abuse and (2) the youngest child in a class of students one to two grades higher than himself.

M's father contends, and Defendants do not dispute, that in addition to the inappropriate sexual behaviors described above, there are other incidents in which M was specifically targeted for sexual abuse multiple times by GL in the ALEC and in the presence of students and at least one teacher. M's father alleges that during science class on April 30, 2009, other students witnessed GL sexually assaulting M by forcing M's head into GL's genital area while a teacher was present in the classroom. M's father reported this incident to M's teacher but states that he received no response. On May 8, 2009, M's father notified the school resource officer about the inappropriate sexual behaviors of GL, but he again received no response. Also on May 8, 2009, M exposed himself to another student in the bathroom and received disciplinary action. On May 12, 2009, in the presence of a paraprofessional, GL pulled down his shorts during math class, exposed himself to M, and compelled M to perform oral sex on him, which M did while another student watched.

The May 12 incident was reported to police by school officials. The police report of the incident, which was submitted to the Court under seal (Doc. 20, Exhibit 3) ², describes facts that, if proven to be true, may establish that some, if not all, of the individual Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that M's classroom environment was potentially dangerous to M, as well as to other students, and that M's educational placement subjected him to the danger of being sexually abused or undergoing other emotional trauma.

After the May 12 incident, M's licensed therapist wrote a letter to MHSD (Doc. 26–3), requesting that M be placed in an alternative classroom setting so that he would not have to return to the classroom where he was sexually abused. However, after a meeting held on May 18, 2009, with M's father present, it was determined that M would instead be provided with home-based education for four hours per week for the remainder of the fourth grade.

M rejoined the ALEC at the start of his fifth grade year, in the fall of 2009. Although the classroom's layout had been modified and GL had been removed from the class, for all intents and purposes, M's placement was identical to his placement the previous school year. The same paraprofessional that had been present in the classroom during both sexual assaults against M was again assigned to the ALEC. Defendant Fowler was again the lead teacher in the ALEC, as she had been the previous school year.

M's father filed a due process complaint on December 31, 2009, with the Arkansas Department of Education, alleging that MHSD had failed to provide M with a free appropriate public education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”). Following a series of administrative hearings on the matter, a hearing officer concluded on August 7, 2010, that MHSD had not complied with the IDEA's requirements by failing to implement M's Colorado-based IEP. (Doc. 15–1, p. 22). The hearing officer also found that MHSD had denied M a free appropriate public education in failing to identify M as a special education student. Id. The MHSD was ordered to hold an IEP conference for M and to place him in special education and related services. Id. Although the administrative hearing officer made a determination as to MHSD's compliance with the IDEA, the officer was without jurisdictional authority to rule on any of M's claims regarding school officials' failure to protect M from classroom sexual abuse.

On December 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint in this Court, claiming that Defendants violated M's constitutionally protected liberty interest in his bodily integrity and security,...