Parent v. Hartford Bd. of Educ. & New Britain Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 08 October 2013
• Docket Number: Nos. 3:11–CV–01381 CSH, 3:11–CV–01431 CSH.,s. 3:11–CV–01381 CSH, 3:11–CV–01431 CSH.
• Citation: 976 F.Supp.2d 164
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: A., by his Parent & 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.

976 F.Supp.2d 164

A., by his Parent & 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.

Nos. 3:11–CV–01381 CSH, 3:11–CV–01431 CSH.

United States District Court,

D. Connecticut.

Oct. 8, 2013.

David C. Shaw, Law Office of David C. Shaw, LLC, Bloomfield, CT, for Plaintiff.

Melinda B. Kaufmann, Corporation Counsel's Office, Hartford, CT, for Defendant.

RULING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, DEFENDANT HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS, AND DEFENDANT HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION'S MOTION TO RE–OPEN DISCOVERY

CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR., Senior District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff A. (“Student”) is a special education student who lives with his Plaintiff Parent (“Parent”), Mr. A., in New Britain, Connecticut. (Collectively, “Plaintiffs.”) At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Student was identified as being in need of special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (hereinafter “IDEA”) under the disability category of autism. Until sometime shortly after this lawsuit was filed—i.e., on September 2, 2011—Student was enrolled at Classical Magnet School (hereinafter “Magnet School”) which is situated outside of Student's home education district (i.e., New Britain, under the oversight of Defendant New Britain Board of Education) and which is run and overseen by Defendant Hartford Board of Education. (Hereinafter New Britain Board of Education and Hartford Board of Education will collectively be referred to as “Defendants.”) The parties agree that Defendants New Britain Board of Education and Hartford Board of Education were jointly responsible for providing a free appropriate public education (hereinafter “FAPE”) to Student during the time that he lived in New Britainand attended Magnet School in Hartford.

On or around October 7, 2010, Plaintiffs requested an administrative hearing from the Connecticut Department of Education to challenge what Plaintiffs considered to be the failure of Defendants to provide a FAPE to Student. The parties initially agreed to participate in a mediation in place of an administrative resolution meeting and hearing; however, a November 2010 mediation was unsuccessful, and so the matter proceeded to an administrative hearing. Following a 13–day administrative hearing in which this matter was heard as a contested case pursuant both to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 10–76 and related regulations and to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f) and related regulations, as well as in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, the due process Administrative Hearing Officer who oversaw and adjudicated the hearing issued a Final Decision and Order on August 2, 2011. Among other findings, the Administrative Hearing Officer found partially in favor of the Plaintiffs based on the Defendants' failure to provide a FAPE for Student for the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 school years, stating that “the program provided by the [New Britain Board of Education] and the Magnet School [run by the Hartford Board of Education] ... was not appropriate,” and, moreover, that the “Magnet School and the [New Britain] Board [of Education] violated the Parent's [IDEA] procedural rights relating to the 2010–2011 school year in several respects.” See, e.g., [Doc. 1] Ex. A at 18.

By way of remedial relief, the Administrative Hearing Officer issued several remedial orders, familiarity with which is assumed for the purposes of this Ruling. Despite these findings, however, the Administrative Hearing Officer found that there was insufficient evidence to show that Student would benefit from an in-home program coordinated by a Board Certified Behavioral Analyst. Id. at 19.

Plaintiffs filed the first of these captioned consolidated actions in this Court on September 2, 2011, seeking an award from both Defendants of attorneys' fees and costs for work performed during the administrative hearing process. [Doc. 1]. In early November of the same year, this action was consolidated with another action, commenced on September 16, 2011 and captioned New Britain Board of Education v. J.A., No. 3:11–CV–01431. [Doc. 23]. The latter action was brought by New Britain Board of Education as a limited appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer's ruling.¹ Plaintiffs filed an Answer to New Britain Board of Education's action, then filed a Motion to Amend/Correct this Answer on May 22, 2012. [Doc. 33]. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record. [Doc. 38]. On September 10, 2012, following a Ruling by this Court which denied as moot Plaintiffs' prior motion to Amend/Correct their Answer, see [Doc. 66], Plaintiffs filed another Amended Answer and Amended Counterclaims (hereinafter Plaintiffs' “Amended Answer and Counterclaims”) [Doc. 67] to Defendant New Britain Board of Education's Complaint in the then-consolidated action, naming Hartford Board of Education as an additional party to the action. This is the controlling Answer and Counterclaims for the purposes of this ruling.

In their September 10, 2012 Amended Answer and Counterclaims, Plaintiffs allege two Counterclaims. The first Amended Counterclaim alleges that DefendantsNew Britain Board of Education and Hartford Board of Education are liable for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq. (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, by failing and refusing to implement the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision. [Doc. 67] at 16, 18. Plaintiffs further allege that subsequent to the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision, Defendants have “taken actions that interfere with the implementation” of that decision, “such as refusing to authorize the independent consultant time to fully evaluate the Student's educational program and placing limitations on the scope of the activities of the consultant.” Id. at 18. Moreover, Plaintiffs state Defendants' “repeated refusal ... to implement such critical aspects of the [Administrative Hearing Officer's] decision as allowing the independent consultant sufficient time to properly evaluate the Student, ... failing to implement critical relief ordered by the hearing officer ..., refusal to pay for the Parent's independent evaluation and refusal to pay for transportation related to the evaluations ordered by the hearing officer have interfered with the implementation” of a FAPE to the Student and “with his right to have [the Administrative Hearing Officer's order] implemented[,] in violation of the ADA and [Section] 504.” Id. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have refused to implement such aspects of the Administrative Hearing Officer's decision in part because Parent “has acted to enforce his rights under the ADA and Section 504.” Id.

Plaintiffs' Amended Second Counterclaim alleges liability on the part of Defendants New Britain Board of Education and Hartford Board of Education for failing to implement the Administrative Hearing Officer's Final Decision and Order by failing “to retain the Independent Educational Consultant to help the [Planning and Placement Team] develop and implement an appropriate IEP” for Student throughout most of the 2011–2012 school year, and, moreover, for failing “to implement the ordered compensatory education services in a timely and safe manner due to providing unreliable, and often unsafe, transportation to the Student.” Id. at 21.

In August of 2011, Plaintiffs filed a complaint concerning Defendants' alleged noncompliance with the hearing officer's decision with the Connecticut Department of Education pursuant to C.G.S.A. § 10–76h(d)(2). The Connecticut Department of Education processed Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to the formal Connecticut State Complaint Resolution Process. [Doc. 33–5]. In December of 2011, after reviewing the matter, the Connecticut Department of Education directed Defendants to implement specific parts of the Administrative Hearing Officer's Order. As Plaintiffs state, because state law does not permit the Connecticut Department of Education “to order compensatory education or other appropriate remedial relief,” the Connecticut Department of Education “indicated that the issuance of an order requiring remedial compensatory education, if any, would have to come from” another source [Doc. 33–1] at 3. The Connecticut Department of Education informed the parties that “the normal procedure followed when corrective actions issued through the Complaint Resolution Process are not completed as ordered is to refer the issue to the [Connecticut] Attorney General's Office,” but indicated its belief that Defendants' “failure to complete the corrective actions” could “be addressed through [Defendant New Britain's] appeal” and presumably any answer and counterclaims Plaintiffs brought thereto, as a possible alternate path. Id.; see also [Doc. 33–4], [Doc. 33–5], [Doc. 33–6], and [Doc. 33–7]. A more detailed description of Plaintiffs' claims may be found infra.

In their Amended Counterclaims, filed in the aforementioned action initiated by Defendant New Britain Board of Education, Plaintiffs move the Court for compensatory and punitive damages; attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses; and three Court orders: (1) an order requiring Defendants to immediately implement the Administrative Hearing Officer's Order; (2) an “order against all Defendants awarding the Student at a minimum one full year of compensatory education in the form of retaining the Institute for Professional Practice” to consult regarding the development and implementation of an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) and to provide a Board Certified Behavioral Analyst and paraprofessional/therapist to implement the...