Brett v. Goshen Community School Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:97CV426-CAN.,3:97CV426-CAN. |
| Citation | 161 F.Supp.2d 930 |
| Parties | Kenneth BRETT, Plaintiff, v. GOSHEN COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, Elkhart County Special Education Cooperative, Mary Beth Hulecki, Ph.D., and Cheryl Winkelman, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Margot F Reagan, Konopa Reagan & Kenyon PC, South Bend, IN, Charles P Rice, Boveri Murphy Rice Ryan & LaDue, South Bend, IN, for Kenneth Brett, plaintiff.
Timothy J Maher, Edward N Kalamaros & Associates, South Bend, IN, Philip E Kalamaros, Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP, South Bend, IN, for Goshen Community School Corporation, Elkhart County
Special Education Cooperative, Mary Beth Hulecki, PH.D., Cheryl Winkelman, defendants.
Kenneth Brett (Brett) sued the Goshen Community School Corporation, the special education cooperative, its director, and one of his teachers, alleging that Defendants discriminated against him while he was a student at Goshen High School.
Brett is twenty-four years old, has an IQ of 133, and scored a 1430 on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). He earned his high school diploma in June 1996. Brett alleges that Defendants denied him a free appropriate public education, wrongfully conferred a high school diploma on him, and denied him the services and privileges to which other similarly situated students are entitled. Brett alleges that Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The Defendants, Goshen Community School Corp., Elkhart County Special Education Cooperative (ECSEC), Mary Beth Hulecki (Hulecki)1 and Cheryl Winkelman (Winkelman)2 moved for summary judgment on grounds of mootness and on the issue of free appropriate public education.
Although the Court concludes that this case is not moot, it nevertheless finds no evidence that Brett received anything less than a free appropriate public education. Defendants followed the advice of trained psychologists and educators when they prepared Brett's Individual Education Plans (IEP's). Brett received extensive special educational benefits and related services for elementary school, middle school, and five years of high school, and he successfully completed all necessary graduation requirements. The only time that the Defendants did not fulfill the wishes of either Brett or Valoria Brett, his mother, was the very last IEP when she objected to the plan to graduate, despite Brett's (who was then 18) and the committee's agreement with the plan.
The Court bases its factual summary primarily on Defendants' Statement of Material Facts, which Brett admits "... is generally not in dispute ..." Plaintiff's Amended Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Plaintiff's Response) at 1. The Court has also used the additional facts set forth by Brett in his response. Id.
Defendants moved to strike several of Brett's "Additional Pertinent Facts." Defendants' Objection, Motion to Strike and Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 52] at 5-6. The Court finds that the motion to strike is factually inaccurate and relates immaterial facts, and thus denies it.
Although highly intelligent, Brett had difficulty at school, including skipping school and not doing his homework. Defendants identified Brett at an early age to be disabled, and many different psychologists, psychiatrists, and other counselors have aided him through his school career. His disability was variously described as severe depression, emotional handicap learning disability, or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, yet all concurred that his medical condition was "complex." Brett frequently changed schools, counselors and physicians, and his emotional state fluctuated. Brett's educational plan frequently changed to reflect his needs.
Brett was born on June 19, 1977, and his parents divorced when he was in kindergarten. At his mother's request, a psychologist evaluated him at age 7. He was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder with depressive features and therapy was recommended. The psychologist discounted the possibility of attention deficit disorder and concluded that a diagnosis of learning disabilities was premature.
Brett's mother sought help for her son from the Goshen Community Schools (Goshen Schools) in 1985. Goshen Schools completed an Individual Conference Report and assessed Brett's school situation. The tests revealed that he had average or above average mental ability, that he performed appropriately for his grade level when he was on task, but that his work and study habits were weak. Emotionally handicapped (EH) programming was recommended. Goshen Schools tested him again in 1987, and found him at or above average in intelligence, although his emotional problems and problems with written tasks continued. The Goshen School psychologist, Hulecki,3 recommended that Brett receive emotionally handicapped instruction.
Brett's mother took him to Maple Hill Psychological and Developmental Services for a psycho-educational evaluation in 1988. Although he scored high average or average on intelligence testing, problems with "distractability, fidgetiness, and anxiety including poor peer relationships and conflictual relationships at home" were noted. He was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD)4, but not an anxiety disorder. They recommended Ritalin for the ADD, psychotherapy for poor self-esteem and family conflicts, and "special attention from his sixth grade teachers."
Defendant Elkhart County Special Education Cooperative (ECSEC) reevaluated Brett in 1990, the year before he started high school. He achieved superior intelligence scores,5 and his academic skills were above average. The case conference recommended learning disability (LD) consultation services for the remainder of the school year, and LD strategies/study hall and self management for 1991-92. Brett's mother also had him reevaluated in 1990 for ADD, and Ritalin was recommended.
Throughout elementary and middle school, school officials conducted individual conferences with Brett and his mother, in which officials explained the evaluation of his condition and made recommendations for his education in the upcoming school year. Brett's mother attended each conference and signed a form stating she agreed with the recommendations.
Brett attended Goshen High School as a freshman during the 1991-92 school year. ECSEC completed an IEP on November 27, 1991, noting his 1990 intelligence test and concluding that he had superior ability, although his written language and spelling were significantly below expectancy level. His class performance fluctuated as he failed to complete and turn in assignments, and he had difficulty expressing his feelings. The IEP recommended 71% mainstreamed education and 29% special education, including Learning Disability (LD) support/study hall and EH/LD self management. Brett and his mother signed the November 1991 IEP. He earned several credits toward graduation that year.
Brett did not return to Goshen High School for his sophomore year; instead, his mother placed him at Bethany Christian School (Bethany). Bethany did not have a special education program, but he did attend a special study hall with individual assistance from a teacher. Kenneth Brett Deposition at 29. His grades improved at Bethany, and he earned several more credits toward graduation. id. at 30 Defendants had no contact with Brett or his mother during his that year, and they did not prepare an IEP for him.
Brett began his junior year at Bethany. Due to severe allergies and depression, Brett started to miss classes and not complete work, and he was failing five of his six academic classes. In November 1993, his mother requested special education services from ECSEC, and they completed an evaluation and convened a case conference. Brett and his mother wanted him to continue attending Bethany, so the committee suggested modifications and adjustments to his curriculum there. If the modifications were not possible, he could return to Goshen High School. He received academic credit for three of his classes that semester.
Brett's mother removed him from Bethany and returned him to Goshen High School for the second semester. Defendants held a case conference on February 21, 1994. Brett's IEP recommended 18% special education services, and he was not identified as emotionally handicapped. His mother approved the February 1994 IEP. His attendance problems and his failure to complete assignments continued, and his depression intensified during this semester. Complaint ¶ 8. Another case conference was held on March 23, 1994.
The March 1994 conference modified Brett's schedule at his mother's request. Because of his recurring attendance problems he was assigned to afternoon classes only, and he received 3% special education each day. He completed the afternoon classes for additional academic credits toward graduation.
While the March 1994 IEP did not mention emotional handicap, Defendants referred Brett to a neuropsychiatrist and he began seeing Roger Hensley, M.D. Brett and his mother also saw a child psychologist, Marc A. Zackheim, Ph.D. during the summer of 1994.
On September 16, 1994, Defendants held a conference to assess Brett's educational needs for the 1994-95 school year. This was his fourth case conference in less than a year. His mother, her attorney, Judy Menadue, and Brett attended the conference, in which Brett's continuing attendance problems were discussed. The September 1994 IEP stated that his emotional handicap was primary and his learning disability was secondary. He was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore ex rel. Bell v. Hamilton Se. Sch. Dist.
...provide a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE) to all disabled students. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A); Brett v. Goshen Cmty. Sch. Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 930, 944 (N.D. Ind. 2001). This duty has both a procedural and a substantive component. In considering whether a school has met the FAP......
-
Olu-Cole v. E.L. Haynes Pub. Charter Sch.
...compensatory education, regardless of his eligibility for current or future services under the Act."); Brett v. Goshen Community Sch. Corp. , 161 F. Supp. 2d 930, 943 (N.D. Ind. 2001) (same); cf. Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist. , 509 U.S. 1, 4 n.3, 113 S.Ct. 2462, 125 L.Ed.2d 1 (19......
-
Ruiz-Pagan v. Dep't of Educ. of P.R.
...of age will not moot otherwise valid claims regarding IDEA violations that occurred before. See e.g., Brett v. Goshen Cmty. Sch. Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d 930, 941-42 (N.D. Ind. 2001). --------- ...
-
Brooks v. Dist. of Columbia
...graduation from high school should be treated differently from “aging past twenty-one” and relies on Brett v. Goshen Community School Corp., 161 F.Supp.2d 930 (N.D.Ind.2001) (M.J. opinion) as support for that proposition. Def.'s Reply, ECF No. 25, at 3–4. In Brett, however, the court explic......