J.S.R. v. Dale Cnty. Bd. of Educ., CASE NO. 1:13-CV-582-WKW [WO]

• Decision Date: 28 September 2015
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 1:13-CV-582-WKW [WO]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
• Parties: J.S.R., a minor, by his Mother, Susan Tarter Childs, as his Next Friend, and SUSAN TARTER CHILDS, Plaintiffs, v. DALE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

J.S.R., a minor, by his Mother,Susan Tarter Childs, as his Next Friend, and SUSAN TARTER CHILDS, Plaintiffs, v. DALE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-582-WKW [WO]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

September 28, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This action arises under various federal statutes including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq., Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The suit follows an administrative due process hearing held pursuant to the IDEA and Alabama law.

Before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment, (Docs. # 25, 27), which have been briefed fully, (Docs. # 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 42,43, 44, 45).^{1 2 3} Defendant moves in the alternative for a judgment on the pleadings. Upon consideration of the parties' arguments, the evidence, including the administrative record, and relevant law, the court finds that Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is due to be granted on Count I, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is due to be granted with respect to any discrimination or retaliation claim related to J.S.R.'s exclusion from baseball (Counts II and III) and to Plaintiffs' equal protection claim asserted as part of Count IV. The cross-motions for summary judgment are due to be denied in all other respects.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The court exercises subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Personal jurisdiction and venue are uncontested.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Summary Judgment

To succeed on summary judgment, the movant must demonstrate "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [he] is entitled to judgment as amatter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court must view the evidence and the inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816, 820 (11th Cir. 2010).

The party moving for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). This responsibility includes identifying the portions of the record illustrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Or, the movant can assert, without citing the record, that the nonmoving party "cannot produce admissible evidence to support" a material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). If the movant meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish - with evidence beyond the pleadings - that a genuine dispute material to each of its claims for relief exists. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. A genuine dispute of material fact exists when the nonmoving party produces evidence allowing a reasonable fact finder to return a verdict in its favor. Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001).⁴

B. Judgment on the Pleadings

"Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Douglas Asphalt Co. v. Qore, Inc., 541 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2008). "All facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Id.⁵

III. BACKGROUND

As a preface to the facts supporting Plaintiffs' claims, the court begins with an explanation of the federal statutes affording special education and related services, accommodations, and procedural protections to disabled students.

A. Relevant Statutes

1. The IDEA

Originally enacted in 1970 as the Education of the Handicapped Act ("EHA") Congress passed the IDEA "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education [("FAPE")] thatemphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). The IDEA defines a FAPE as

special education and related services that - (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with [a disabled student's] individualized education program [("IEP")]. . . .

Id. at § 1401(9). The IDEA contains "an affirmative obligation of every [local] public school system to identify students who might be disabled and evaluate those students to determine whether they are indeed eligible." N.G. v. D.C., 556 F. Supp. 2d 11, 16 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A)). This obligation is known as "Child Find," and a local school system's "[f]ailure to locate and evaluate a potentially disabled child constitutes a denial of FAPE." Id. A state must evaluate a child for a disability under the IDEA upon the request of the child's parent. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(B).

A child with a disability is one "with intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance . . . , orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities" "who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services." Id. at § 1401(3) (emphasis added). Once a child is determined to have adisability, and his parent consents to the provision of special education services, local educational agencies are obligated by the IDEA to reevaluate him when it is determined that a reevaluation is warranted or the child's parent or teacher asks for reevaluation. Id. at § 1414(a)(2)(A). Subject to a few exceptions, reevaluations should not occur more often than annually but at least every three years. Id. at § 1414(a)(2)(B).

The local school system must develop an IEP for each child with a disability covered by the IDEA. "The IEP is a comprehensive document developed by a team of parents, teachers, and other school administrators outlining the goals of the child, and the special education and related services needed to meet those goals. M.T.V. v. DeKalb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)).

States are required by the IDEA to "establish and maintain procedures in accordance with [the IDEA] to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of a [FAPE]." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(a). The requisite safeguards include the provision of

[a]n opportunity for any party to present a complaint - (A) with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of [FAPE] to such child; and (B) which sets forth an alleged violation that occurred not more than [two] years before the date the parent or public agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint . . . .

Id. at § 1415(b)(6). Generally, where the local school system is unable to resolve a complaint, the complainant is entitled to "an impartial due process hearing . . . conducted by the State educational agency." Id. at § 1415(f)(1)(A).

In Alabama, the aggrieved parent files a complaint with the State Department of Education and requests an impartial due process hearing. The State Superintendent of Education appoints a qualified hearing officer to conduct the hearing. See generally Ala. Admin. Code r. 290-8-9-.08. The hearing is conducted by an impartial hearing officer with knowledge of the IDEA who is not involved in the child's education. 20 U.S.C. at § 1415(f)(3)(A). The impartial hearing officer is required to render a decision as to whether the child received a FAPE, and he or she may find that a child did not receive a FAPE "only if the [local school system's] procedural inadequacies - (I) impeded the child's right to a [FAPE]; (II) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process regarding the provision of [FAPE] to the parents' child; or (III) caused a deprivation of educational benefits." Id. at § 1415(f)(3)(E). A party aggrieved by the hearing officer's decision may bring a civil action in state or federal court. Id. at § 1415(i)(2)(A). Further, a prevailing party may initiate an action in federal district court to recoup his or her reasonable attorney's fees. Id. at § 1415(i)(3)(A)-(C).

2. Section 504

All children with disabilities under the IDEA, as well as some children who are ineligible for special education under the IDEA, are also protected by § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Section 504 is thus broader than the IDEA in its coverage of students with disabilities. It is distinguishable from the IDEA in that it "provide[s] relief from discrimination while the IDEA provides relief from inappropriate educational placement decisions, regardless of discrimination." Hornstine v. Twp. of Moorestown, 263 F. Supp. 2d 887, 901 (D.N.J. 2003); see also 2 Ronna Greff Schneider, Education Law § 6:15 ("In contrast with the affirmative obligation for a [FAPE] under the IDEA, § 504 is phrased negatively, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability."). "[I]n the special education context," § 504 prohibits a school district from "exclud[ing], deny[ing] benefits to, or discriminat[ing] against any student solely on the basis of his or her disability." Jennifer B. v. Chilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 891 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1321 (M.D. Ala. 2012) (internal citation omitted). The U.S. Department of Education has promulgated regulations under § 504. See 34 C.F.R. § 104.1. "[These federal] regulations clarify that a school district has an affirmative duty to...