Jennifer B. v. Chilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 19 September 2012
• Docket Number: No. 2:11–cv–839–MEF.,2:11–cv–839–MEF.
• Citation: 891 F.Supp.2d 1313
• Parties: JENNIFER B., individually and as mother and next friend of S.B., a minor, Plaintiff, v. CHILTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

891 F.Supp.2d 1313

JENNIFER B., individually and as mother and next friend of S.B., a minor, Plaintiff,

v.CHILTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

No. 2:11–cv–839–MEF.

United States District Court,

M.D. Alabama,

Northern Division.

Sept. 19, 2012.

Deborah Ann Mattison, Rachel Lee McGinley, Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

Mark Seymour Boardman, Katherine Hortberg Watkins, Boardman Carr Hutcheson & Bennett, PC, Chelsea, AL, for Defendant.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

MARK E. FULLER, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Jennifer B. (“Ms. B.”), a high school English teacher, filed a complaint in this Court on behalf of herself and her disabled child, S.B., against her employer, Chilton County Board of Education (“the Board”). Ms. B. alleges that the Board denied equal educational opportunities to S.B., denied her equal employment benefits on the basis of S.B.'s disability, and retaliated against her for advocating for her son's rights. Ms. B. seeks declaratory relief, reimbursement for S.B.'s placement in another preschool program, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The Board seeks summary judgment on all of Ms. B.'s claims. More specifically, the Board has requested that the Court either (1) dismiss Ms. B.'s claims on the ground that she has failed to exhaust her Section 504 and ADA administrative remedies to the extent required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“the IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1415, or (2) stay the present action to allow Ms. B. to exhaust her administrative remedies. (Def.'s Summ. Judg. Br. 39 (Doc. # 21).) Ms. B. seeks partial summary judgment on her claims for declaratory relief and reimbursement for her childcare costs. (Pl.'s Corrected Partial Summ. Judg. Br. 3 (Doc. # 29).)

Because the Court concludes that the Ms. B.'s requests for relief have not been sufficiently exhausted under the IDEA, the Court orders that this action be STAYED and REMANDED to the Alabama Department of Education for resolution of the IDEA-based issues and claims pervading this dispute. Accordingly, the Court DENIES both parties' motions for summary judgment with leave to refile after administrative review has been completed. This opinion will address only the issue of exhaustion under the IDEA.

II. Jurisdiction and Venue

This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Ms. B.'s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties do not claim that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, nor do they dispute that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and the Court finds adequate allegations supporting both.

III. Legal Standard

A motion for summary judgment looks to “pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A court should grant summary judgment when the pleadings and supporting materials show that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that the moving party deserves judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment “always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying” the relevant documents that “it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). To shoulder this burden, the moving party can present evidence to this effect. Id. at 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Or it can show that the nonmoving party has failed to present evidence in support of some element of its case on which it ultimately bears the burden of proof. Id.

If the moving party meets its burden, the non-movant must then designate, by affidavits, depositions, admissions, and answers to interrogatories, specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 64 F.3d 590, 593–94 (11th Cir.1995). A genuine issue of material fact exists when the nonmoving party produces evidence that would allow a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in his or her favor. Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir.2001). Thus, summary judgment requires the nonmoving party to “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348. Indeed, a plaintiff must present evidence demonstrating that he can establish the basic elements of his claim, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, because “conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative value” at the summary judgment stage. Evers v. Gen. Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir.1985).

A court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must believe the non-movant's evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. It also must draw all justifiable inferences from the evidence in the nonmoving party's favor. Id. After the nonmoving party has responded to the motion, the court must grant summary judgment if there exists no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party deserves judgment as a matter of law. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

In resolving the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, the Court construes the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant when the parties' factual statements conflict or inferences are required. Barnes v. Sw. Forest Indus., 814 F.2d 607, 609 (11th Cir.1987).

IV. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Relevant Facts

1. The Parties

S.B. is a five-year-old boy who suffers from pachygyria, a neuronal migration disorder that negatively affects his motor and communication skills and causes moderate developmental delays. (Pl.'s Ex. 3, Doc. # 24–3, at 3.) His physical mobility has also been restricted since he underwent corrective surgery for his two “club feet.” ( Id.) S.B.'s disability entitles him to a “free and appropriate education” (“FAPE”) under the IDEA, a federal statute that regulates the provision of public education to children with disabilities by state and local school systems receiving federal funding. 20 U.S.C. § 1412. He is also entitled to have an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) developed for him by a team made up of his parents, teachers, and school administrators that outlines his educationalgoals. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(4). His mother, Jennifer B., is a high school English teacher employed by the Board. (Jennifer B. Dep. 18–16 (Doc. # 20–3).) The Board is a local education agency that receives federal financial assistance (Pl.'s Request for Admissions (Doc. # 24–6).)

2. The PALS Preschool Program

The Board operates a preschool program called Preschoolers Acquiring Learning Strategies (“PALS”), (PALS Description 1 (Attach. to Levey Aff.) (Doc. # 20–4)), which S.B. attended in the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 school years. One of the primary purposes of PALS was to provide “typically developing” children and “special needs” children with an “inclusive learning environment,” allowing special needs children to “benefit from observing and interacting with same-age typically developing peers who demonstrate appropriate behaviors and learning strategies.” ( Id.)

The program description and rosters indicate that each PALS class was made up of approximately seven typically developing children and seven special needs children, a 50–50 ratio. ( Id.; PALS Rosters 1–4 (Attach. to Second Levey Aff.) (Doc. # 33–1).) Typically developing children went through an application and ranking process to obtain one of the seven full-day spots available in PALS (Levey Aff., at ¶ 7) and paid a tuition fee of $200 per month to attend. (PALS Description 4–5 (Doc. # 20–4); PALS Rosters, at 1–5 (Attach. to Second Levey Aff.).) Children and grandchildren of Board employees who met the criteria of a typically developing peer were given the first available full-time spots in the program PALS Description, at 2.) This preference was given so that teachers and staff could have a convenient placement for their children during the school hours. (Cahalane Dep. 74–76 (Doc. # 20–2).)

Special needs children, on the other hand, attended free of charge (PALS Description, at 4–5) but were required to go through the special education referral process to be determined eligible for special education services. ( Id. at 3–4.) The amount of time special needs children spend in the program was determined by their IEP teams and depended on the child's particular needs. ( Id. at 5).

In the school years that S.B. attended PALS, the preschool operated from 7:30 a.m. to 2:40 p.m.¹ ( Id. at 1.) A research-based learning curriculum called “We Can” was provided to all children in the morning until around 11:00 a.m. (Alford Aff. ¶ 3; PALS Schedule (Attach. to Alford Aff.) (Doc. # 20–6).) After 11:00 a.m., when many of the children with disabilities were dismissed (PALS Rosters, at 1–5 (Attach. to Second Levey Aff.)), the program included “independent centers” conducted in the classroom, physical education, lunch, and nap time in the afternoon until 2:40 p.m. (Alford Aff. ¶ 3; PALS Schedule (Attach. to Alford Aff.).)

3. S.B. Begins Attending PALS

Ms. B. placed S.B. in the PALS program through the special education referral process when he turned three and was entitled to a FAPE under the IDEA. S.B.'s IEP team met to develop his IEP on November 20, 2009. (S.B. 2009–2010 IEP 2 (Doc. # 24–13).) The IEP team included Ms. B.; Holly Levey, the coordinator of PALS; a special education teacher; a general education teacher; an occupational therapist; and a speech pathologist. ( Id. at 10.)...