Parent v. Hartford Bd. of Educ. & New Britain Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 19 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:11-CV-01431-GWC,Case No. 3:11-CV-01381-GWC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | A., by his Parent and Next Friend Mr. A., and MR. A., Plaintiffs, v. HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION and NEW BRITAIN BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants. NEW BRITAIN BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff, v. J.A., a Student, and MR. A., Parent and Next Friend of J.A., Defendants. |
(Docs. 126, 128, 129, 198)
Plaintiffs A. ("Student"), a special education student, and his parent Mr. A. ("Parent"), bring this suit under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Hartford Board of Education (HBOE) and New Britain Board of Education (NBBOE) (collectively, "the boards"). (Doc. 19, Second Am. Compl.)1 Plaintiffs claim that they are theprevailing parties in A. v. Hartford Board of Education et al., No. 11-0154 (Conn. Dep't of Educ.) (the "due process case"), and are therefore entitled to fees and costs under § 1415(i)(3)(B) and § 1983. Plaintiffs further claim that the August 2, 2011 Final Decision and Order ("hearing decision") in the due process case should be reversed insofar as it declined to provide Student with an in-home program.2
Consolidated with Plaintiffs' case is NBBOE's case against Student and Parent, docketed No. 3:11-CV-01431, in which NBBOE seeks reversal of the hearing decision to the extent it was adverse to NBBOE. In their Amended Answer to NBBOE's Complaint, Plaintiffs assert counterclaims against the boards for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and for failing to implement the hearing decision. (Doc. 67 at 16-23.) For relief on those counterclaims, Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, fees and costs, and injunctive relief. (Id. at 23-24.)
All parties have filed motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 126, 128, 129.) In their Motion, Plaintiffs argue that (1) the court should reject NBBOE's request for reversal of the hearing decision; (2) Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their Amended Counterclaim; and (3) Plaintiffs are prevailing parties and should be awarded costs, expenses, and fees in the amount of $439,915.88. (Doc. 126-1.) In its Motion, HBOE seeks summary judgment as to all claims against it, and argues that Plaintiffs' request for fees should be denied or reduced. (Doc. 128.) For its part, NBBOE seeks summary judgment on: (1) the portion of NBBOE's Complaint seeking reversal of the hearing decision insofar as it determined NBBOEhad failed to provide a free and appropriate public education during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years; (2) Plaintiffs' counterclaims; and (3) Plaintiffs' demand for attorneys' fees and costs. (Doc. 129.) Finally, Plaintiffs move to supplement their request for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, adding an additional $188,000 for a total request of $627,915.88. (Doc. 198.)
Background
The parties have supplied extensive Local Rule 56(a)(1) statements with exhaustive details regarding numerous aspects of Student's educational and other history. Based on the parties' statements and the court's review of the record, the court presents a relatively brief factual introduction here. Additional facts included in the analysis below as necessary.3
Student was born in 1998 and lives with his father and other family members in New Britain, Connecticut. Parent was awarded sole custody of Student by the Connecticut Superior Court as a result of a marriage dissolution on March 29, 2005. At all times relevant, NBBOE has identified Student as a child in need of special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act ("IDEA") under the disability category "Autism."
In 2001, Student commenced his education in NBBOE's schools in the Head Start program. (See P-1 at 1.) A Planning and Placement Team (PPT)4 meeting was convened at the commencement of Student's Head Start program and evaluations were ordered. The PPT found that Student demonstrated significant delays in all developmental areas. Student was initially classified as Developmentally Delayed.
In 2004, the PPT ordered evaluations of Student to identify his programming needs, identify his special education diagnosis, and address Parent's concern about Student's behavior. At that time, Student was in kindergarten and enrolled in NBBOE's school system. (See P-6 at 1.) The diagnostic evaluation found that Student was functioning in the borderline range of intelligence. The Behavior Assessment for Children showed that Student had clinically significant levels of inattention and "atypicality" across settings. The Childhood Autism Rating Scales were suggestive of moderate autism and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales revealed low levels of self-help skills in the areas of communication, daily living skills, and socialization. Student was found to be academically below grade level in all subject areas. (Id. at 7.)
A Physical Therapy Diagnostic Evaluation was performed. (See P-7.) The evaluator found that Student continued to demonstrate an inappropriate gait pattern that had not significantly changed with formal physical therapy (PT). The evaluator reported that continued PT would not impact Student's gait pattern and that the gait pattern did not prevent Student from participating in school-based activities. The evaluator concluded that PT should be discontinued. An Occupational Therapy Diagnostic Evaluation was conducted and the evaluator recommended that occupational therapy (OT) be continued.
A speech and language evaluation showed that Student's receptive and expressive language skills were below his age and grade equivalent peers. His language skills showed weakness in semantics, language structure, and integrative language skills. Student's speech intelligibility was moderately impaired.
In March 2004, a PPT was convened to review the results of the evaluations. (See P-10.) The PPT changed Student's classification to Autism and found, based on the evaluation, that PT should be discontinued. In 2006, the PPT recommended a psychological evaluation because Student exhibited disruptive, off-task behaviors that were affecting his academic performance. Dr. Felicia Morgan provided a consultation summary in which she noted that NBBOE had no consistent behavior plan. She recommended that a behavior plan needed to be developed with the focus on off-task behaviors, being appropriate with others, and following directions.
On or about March 18, 2008, the PPT met in order to plan Student's 2008-2009 (fifth grade) school year. The PPT established detailed goals and objectives to address Student's reading deficits, math deficiencies in computation, reasoning skills, and written language skills. A Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) was not involved in Student's program. Parent requested an independent educational evaluation. The speech and language pathologist drafted Student's speech and language goals and objectives for the 2008-2009 school year. The speech and language goal was written to address Student's deficits in receptive and expressive language and improve Student's ability to comprehend class instructions and thereby increase his class participation. Student's goals and objectives were developed to reduce Student's impulsivity.
Parent requested a one-to-one special education teacher at a PPT meeting held on June 12, 2008. The team agreed to have the special education teacher work with Student on aone-to-one basis for one hour each week in the resource room. The team agreed to provide Student with speech and language services during the summer of 2008.
During the 2008-2009 school year, Student was in a mainstream classroom with non-disabled peers with modifications. Student's paraprofessional worked with him one-to-one with the intent of making him independent. According to Student's teacher, he had improved in the fifth grade and was in fact functioning more independently. In the classroom, Student received instruction from the special education teacher, the regular education teacher, and a paraprofessional.
On or about July 2008, Student had a psychological evaluation performed by Erik A. Mayville, Ph.D., of the Institute for Educational Planning (IEP). (See P-51a.) Dr. Mayville found a marked difference between Student's reading decoding and reading comprehension abilities. In mathematics and oral language Student performed in the extreme low range. In his written language Student was only capable of completing one subtest. He performed in the high average range in spelling. In sentence and paragraph subtests his scores were below the level required for a norm-based score of these subtests. In the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 3rd Edition, Student performed at a 5-year, 2-month age equivalent.
In the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd Edition, Parent and his teacher completed the forms from which the scores were calculated. Parent scored Student as low in all domains while his special education teacher scored him as falling at moderately low adaptive levels. In the maladaptive behavior scale Student's level was clinically significant. The evaluator gave Parent and the special education teacher the Social Response Scale to complete. Parent reported that Student had social difficulties at home; the special education teacher reported the same wastrue In the school setting. Parent's rating demonstrated severe impairment in contrast to the teacher's mild-to-moderate ratings.
Dr. Mayville recognized that developing an educational program for Student is a complex task. He made sixteen recommendations, including the following: (1) Student's program should be "overseen by a behavior specialist with experience designing...
To continue reading
Request your trial