Disability Rights Md. v. Prince George's Cnty. Pub. Schs.

• Decision Date: 24 March 2023
• Docket Number: 8:21-cv-03001-JRR
• Parties: DISABILITY RIGHTS MARYLAND, Plaintiff, v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

1

DISABILITY RIGHTS MARYLAND, Plaintiff, v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., Defendants.

No. 8:21-cv-03001-JRR

United States District Court, D. Maryland

March 24, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Julie R. Rubin United States District Court Judge

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Disability Rights Maryland's (“DRM”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33) and Defendants Prince George's County Board of Education, Dr. Monica Goldson, and Dr Juanita Miller's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 56 and 57). The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D Md. 2021). For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's Motion will be granted and Defendants' Motion will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory Framework

1. Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act

In 1975, Congress enacted the Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights (“DD”) Act pursuant to which each state designates a State Protection and Advocacy System (“P&A System”) “to protect the legal and human rights of individuals with developmental disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 15041. Under the DD Act, each P&A System “shall have the authority to pursue administrative, legal, and other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of, and advocacy for, the rights of such individuals with” developmental disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 15043(a)(2)(A)(i). Further, such system “shall have the authority to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of individuals with developmental disabilities if the incidents are reported to the system or if there is probable cause to believe that the incidents occurred.” Id. § 15043(a)(2)(B). P&A Systems shall “have access to all records” of an individual with a developmental disability under certain circumstances. Id. § 15043(a)(2)(I).

2. Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act

In 1986, Congress enacted the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (“PAIMI”) Act to “ensure that the rights of individuals with mental illness are protected.” 42 U.S.C. § 10801. Similar to the DD Act, PAIMI provides that each P&A System “shall have the authority to investigate incidents of abuse and neglect of individuals with mental illness if the incidents are reported to the system or if there is probable cause to believe that the incidents occurred.” Id. § 10805(a)(1)(A). Such P&A Systems shall also “have access to all records” of an individual with a mental illness under certain circumstances. Id. § 10805(a)(4).

3. Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights Program

In 1994, Congress enacted a third statute, the Protection and Advocacy for Individual Rights (“PAIR”) Program, to provide the same protections to individuals with disabilities who are not covered under the DD Act or PAIMI. 29 U.S.C. § 794e(a)(1). In order to receive federal funds under the PAIR Program, a state must “have in effect a system to protect and advocate the rights of individuals with disabilities.” Id. § 794e(f)(1). Each eligible system shall “have the same general authorities, including the authority to access records and program income” as set forth in the DD Act. Id. § 794e(f)(2). Similar to the DD Act and PAIMI, each eligible system also has “the authority to pursue legal, administrative, and other appropriate remedies or approaches to ensure the protection of, and advocacy for, the rights of such individuals within the State . . . .” Id. § 794e(f)(3).

“The core requirement of the federal P&A statutes is that, in order to receive federal funding, each state must establish an effective protection and advocacy system to respond to allegations of abuse and neglect and generally to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities.” Disability Rights Wis., Inc. v. State Dep't of Pub. Instruction, 463 F.3d 719, 724 (7th Cir. 2006). “The DD Act, the PAIMI Act and the PAIR Act establish separate but largely parallel regimes to serve particular populations of people with disabilities.” Id. Together the DD Act, the PAIMI Act and the PAIR Program are referred to herein as the “P&A Acts.”

II. STIPULATED AND/ORUNDISPUTEDFACTS^[1]

The following are undisputed or stipulated facts:

DRM is the state's federally mandated P&A System. (Megan Berger Affidavit; ECF No. 33-3 ¶ 2.) Since 2017, DRM, the Maryland Public Justice Center, and the State Office of the Public Defender have formally partnered to establish the Maryland Suspension Representation Project (“MSRP”), launching a statewide intake line for families navigating the school disciplinary process. Additionally, DRM separately maintains an intake line for families who believe their children's special education and school discipline rights have been violated. Id. ¶¶ 3-4; see also ECF No. 26-5.

From January 2018 to April 2021, DRM received over 85 complaints transmitted through its intake call line, referrals from the MSRP, and attorneys and advocates who worked with Prince George's County Public Schools (“PGCPS” or “School District”) parents and families. Id. ¶ 5. The students identified in the complaints attended 46 different schools across PGCPS (10 high schools, 10 middle schools, and 26 elementary schools). Id. ¶ 8. The complaints relate to exclusionary discipline and interrelated forms of educational neglect of students with disabilities, and allege that, instead of handling challenging, disability-related behaviors with appropriate supports, PGCPS responds with punitive, exclusionary discipline. Id. ¶¶ 5, 8. Some of the complaints allege that PGCPS fails to provide disabled students with legally required education services while these students are removed from school for disciplinary reasons. Id. ¶ 9.

DRM investigated many of the complaints received and determined that “PGCPS frequently violated the educational rights of students with disabilities.” Further, DRM learned from PGCPS's enrollment and discipline data that during the 2018-19 school year, students with Individualized Education Plans in PGCPS accounted for 11% of enrollment and 23% of students disciplinarily removed. (ECF No. 33-3 ¶¶ 10-11.)^[2]

On August 12, 2020, DRM sent a letter to PGCPS requesting the following:

From the period of January 1, 2019 to the date of this letter, the names of District students in the following categories who have experienced exclusionary discipline, and for each student:

(a) name, last school of attendance, and the primary class to which the student was assigned; and

(b) name, telephone number and address for the student's parents/guardians:

a. Any and all students who are eligible for special needs education and who have received a short-term suspension (1-3 days);

b. Any and all students who are eligible for special needs education and who have received a long-term suspension (4-10 days);

c. Any and all students who are eligible for special needs education and who have received an extended suspension (11-44 days);

d. Any and all students who are eligible for special needs education and who have received an expulsion (45 plus days); and e. Any and all students currently placed in alternative schools who were referred for special education and found eligible for special education and related services at the alternative school.

(ECF No. 26-2 at 1.)

On September 2, 2020, PGCPS issued a written response to DRM's request. Although PGCPS consented to, and did, provide the number of students subject to short- and long-term suspensions, extended suspensions, and expulsions during the relevant period, PGCPS otherwise refused to provide DRM the information it requested. The letter states in pertinent part:

At the outset, Maryland does not recognize a cause of action for educational negligence. See John A. v. Bd. of Educ., 400 Md. 363 (2007). Further, there is no allegation raised in your letter that there has been any reported act or omission consistent with the . . . definitions of either abuse or neglect [set forth in PAIMI, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 10802(1) and (5)]. You state that alleged disproportionate exclusionary discipline rises to the level of negligence; however, this is inconsistent with the definitions of either abuse or neglect set forth in PAIMI, which both state that an act or omission has caused or placed an individual with a disability at risk of injury or death.

* * *

Your allegations seem more appropriately addressed pursuant to the dispute resolution processes set forth in IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act]. The IDEA has established a comprehensive dispute resolution process for disputes involving allegations of the failure to provide a FAPE [free appropriate public education]. It is inappropriate to attempt to obtain student record data under the PAIMI for allegations clearly related to the provision of special education and related services. Accordingly, PGCPS may not release the requested information pursuant to the PAIMI.

* * *

If you obtain additional information that supports your contention that DRM, pursuant to its P&A authority[,] has probable cause for abuse and neglect so that DRM may obtain the requested information, please feel free to provide it and PGCPS will further review your request.

(ECF No. 33-5.)

By letter dated October 26, 2020, DRM advised PGCPS:

Initially, we would like to note that we are no longer requesting at this time, the contact information for the parents or guardians of those students in category (a) above - any and all students who are eligible for special education and who have received a short-term suspension (1-3 days). Although we are entitled to this information, we have determined that we are withdrawing this request at this time. We are however still requesting contact information for the parents or guardians of students in

...