A.K v. Westhampton Beach Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 27 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | 17-CV-0866(JS)(SIL) |
| Parties | A.K, a minor (CHRISTIAN KILLORAN, as parent), Plaintiffs, v. WESTHAMPTON BEACH SCHOOL DISTRICT, MICHAEL RADDAY-SUPERINTENDENT, SUZANNE M. MENSCH, HALSEY C. STEVENS, STACY RUBIO, CLAIRE BEAN, JAMES N. HULME, JOYCE DONNESSON, and GEORGE R. KAST, JR. individually and collectively as Board of Education Members), Defendants. CHRISTIAN KILLORAN and TERRIE KILLORAN, individually and on behalf of their infant son, A.K., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. WESTHAMPTON BEACH UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MICHAEL RADDAY (individually and in his official capacity as SUPERINTENDENT), SUZANNE M. MENSCH, HALSEY C. STEVENS, STACY RUBIO, CLAIRE BEAN, JAMES N. HULME, JOYCE DONNESSON, and GEORGE R. KAST, JR., (individually and in their respective official capacities as Board of Education Members), Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiffs:
Christian Killoran, Esq., prose
Terrie Killoran, prose
132-13 Main Street
Westhampton, New York 11978
Thomas J. Killeen, Esq.
Thomas J. Killeen P.C.
32645 Main Road
Cutchogue, New York 11935
For Defendants:
Ann C. Leahey, Esq.
DEVITT SPELLMAN BARRETT, LLP
50 Route 111
Smithtown, New York 11787
Pro se plaintiffs Christian Killoran and Terrie Killoran (together, "the Parents"), individually and as parents to A.K., a child with Down Syndrome, (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") commenced this consolidated action against defendants Westhampton Beach School District, ("Westhampton" or "the District"), Michael Radday, ("the Superintendent"), Suzanne M. Mensch, Halsey C. Stevens, Stacy Rubio, Claire Bean, James N. Hulme, Joyce Donnesson, and George R. Kast, Jr. (together, the "School Board," and collectively with Westhampton and the Superintendent, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, ("SACC," D.E. 52, at 1-77) alleges violations of: (1) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq.; (2) the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; (3) Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code ("Section 1983"), 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (4) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) et seq. Plaintiffs' SACC additionally (5) appeals the 2017 administrative decisions of independent hearing officer ("IHO") James A. Monk ("IHO Monk") and state review officer ("SRO")Steven Krolak ("SRO Krolak"); (6) seeks an equitable order directing Defendants to enroll A.K. and to utilize an inclusion consultant to design A.K.'s Individualized Educational Plan ("IEP") for implementation in the District; and (7) appeals the July 11, 2018 SRO decision.
Currently pending before the Court are Defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth causes of action, (Defs. Mot., D.E. 60), and Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgement on the first, second, third, and fourth causes of action, (Pls. Mot., D.E. 62). The Court has carefully reviewed the administrative record in this case. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.
Plaintiffs have filed numerous administrative proceedings and multiple actions in this Court. In the interest of brevity, only the proceedings relevant to the issues presented in the parties' motions are discussed below.
At the time the SACC was filed, A.K. was a fifteen-year-old boy born with Down Syndrome. (SACC ¶ 2.) A.K. attended elementary school, completing the sixth grade in 2015 in his home school district, the Remsenburg-Speonk School District ("Remsenburg").2 (Pls. 56.1 Stmt., D.E. 41, ¶ 10; Defs. Reply 56.1 Stmt., D.E. 44, at ECF pp. 13-24, ¶ 8.) While at Remsenburg, in fifth and sixth grade, (IHO Lederman Dec. at 4.)
Remsenburg, which offers instruction only through the sixth grade, contracts with Westhampton and Eastport-South Manor School District ("Eastport") to act as receiving schools for Remsenburg students in seventh grade through high school, and students go to one district or the other.3 (Pls. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 10.) According to A.K.'s parents, they reached out to Westhampton Beach Middle School ("Westhampton MS") as early as 2013 expressing theirinterest in sending A.K. there upon his completion of the sixth grade. (SACC ¶ 60; IHO Lederman Dec. at 6.) Plaintiffs stressed that it was important for A.K to be educated in Westhampton MS so he could attend the school that his siblings would be attending and maintain his friendships as he transitioned out of elementary school. (SACC ¶¶ 70, 74; IHO Lederman Dec. at 7.)
During A.K.'s sixth-grade year, Remsenburg developed an initial IEP for A.K. for the upcoming 2015-2016 school year that recommended placement in an 8:1:1 program (8 students, 1 teacher, and 1 teaching assistant) at Eastport. (IHO Lederman Dec. at 8.) "The program was described as a life skills program focused on teaching self-care skills, independence skills, and vocational career skills." (IHO Lederman Dec. at 8.) However, upon A.K.'s graduation from elementary school in June 2015, he chose to attend Westhampton MS. (Defs. Reply 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs allege that Westhampton refused to enroll A.K. or to convene a Committee on Special Education ("CSE") to determine his IEP. (SACC ¶ 90; Pls. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 16, 19.)
Plaintiffs challenged Remsenburg's initial IEP by filing an administrative complaint against the school. (Defs. 56.1 Counterstmt., D.E. 44 at ECF pp. 24-45, ¶ 5.) In accordance with a stipulation of settlement ("Stipulation") executed July 16, 2015 by Remsenburg and Plaintiffs, A.K.'s IEP was amended to recommend the following special services: (a) a 15:1:1 self-contained classplacement; (b) a resource room in a 3:1:1 setting, five times per week for forty minutes; (c) a 1:1 teaching assistant for six hours and thirty minutes per day; (d) a consultant for integration for sixty hours over the school year to consult with staff on curriculum, behavior, and program development; and (e) the related services of speech language therapy, physical therapy, and occupational therapy. (Defs. 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶¶ 9-11; IHO Lederman Dec. at 8.) The Stipulation further required Remsenburg to submit a letter to Westhampton, which was not a party to the Stipulation, requesting that it have the outlined program implemented at Westhampton MS. (Defs. 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶¶ 11-12.)
In accordance with the Stipulation, on July 9, 2015, a lawyer for Remsenburg wrote a letter to Westhampton's attorney setting forth the above changes to A.K.'s IEP and stating that "[Remsenburg] believes that Westhampton is able to implement the referenced program." (Defs. 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶ 13.) Westhampton denied the request and refused to admit A.K., stating that the District was not "in a position to accommodate the severely intellectually disabled child in a 15:1:1 class that possesses Regents-track students being administered the State's intensive core curriculum." (IHO Lederman Dec. at 9.)
On August 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a federal action in this Court against the Westhampton Board of Education seekinginjunctive relief directing it to permit A.K. to attend Westhampton for the 2015-2016 academic year. (SACC ¶ 24; Defs. 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶ 16; see C.K . v. Bd. of Educ. of the Westhampton Beach Sch. Dist., 15-CV-4743 (E.D.N.Y.).) On December 18, 2015, Plaintiffs amended their complaint by adding claims of discrimination under the IDEA, the ADA, Section 504, and Section 1983. (Defs. 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶ 16.) On May 9, 2016, Judge Arthur D. Spatt dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust their claims at the administrative level under the IDEA. (C.K . v. Bd. of Educ. of the Westhampton Beach Sch. Dist., 185 F. Supp. 3d 317, 324 (E.D.N.Y. 2016).)
Subsequently, on May 10, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their initial administrative due process complaint against Westhampton seeking an impartial hearing regarding the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 school years. (SACC ¶¶ 25, 31, 116; Defs. 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶ 2.) A hearing was held before an IHO, and on June 4, 2016, the District's motion to dismiss the due process complaint was granted. (Defs. 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶ 25; IHO Lederman Dec. at 1-2.) However, on July 11, 2016, the SRO issued a decision vacating the dismissal of the case, and the matter was consolidated before a different IHO in a pending proceeding Plaintiffs had filed against Remsenburg. (Defs. 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶ 31; IHO Lederman Dec. at 2.)
At the direction of the IHO, in September 2016, Westhampton enrolled A.K. and convened a CSE. The CSE issued a recommendation for A.K. to be placed in an 8:1:1 program within Eastport for the 2016-2017 school year. (Defs. 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶¶ 38-40.) On September 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed another due process complaint against Westhampton challenging the District's recommendation for A.K.'s program and placement for the 2016-2017 school year. (Defs. 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶ 41.) On October 11, 2016, IHO Nancy M. Lederman ("IHO Lederman") consolidated this matter with the due process complaints that were already pending before her. (Defs. 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶ 42.) At a hearing on November 10, 2016, the parents withdrew all complaints against Remsenburg. (Defs. 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶¶ 43-44.)
The following are the Court's summaries of the administrative decisions in the proceedings against Westhampton relevant to the pending motions.
On January 26, 2017, IHO Lederman issued a decision finding that Westhampton had failed to provide A.K. with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial