Pearl River Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Duncan
Decision Date | 05 September 2014 |
Docket Number | Case No. 12–CV–2938 KMK. |
Citation | 56 F.Supp.3d 339 |
Parties | PEARL RIVER UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. Arne DUNCAN, as Secretary of the Department of Education, and United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Mark Craig Rushfield, Esq., Shaw, Perelson, May & Lambert, LLP, Poughkeepsie, NY, for Plaintiff.
Jennifer Ellen Blain, Esq., United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Pearl River Union Free School District (“Plaintiff”) brings this Action against Defendants Arne Duncan, as Secretary of the United States Department of Education, and the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that OCR's issuance of a Letter of Findings setting forth its determinations in regard to an alleged incident of racial harassment was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. (“the APA”), and deprived Plaintiff of both procedural and substantive due process, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's APA and Fifth Amendment claims on the ground that Plaintiff lacks standing to assert them. Defendants also move to dismiss Plaintiff's APA claims on the ground that the APA bars their review by this Court, as OCR's issuance of the Letter of Findings was not final agency action. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion To Dismiss is granted.
The following facts are taken from the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which allegations the Court accepts as true for the purpose of deciding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. On February 23, 2011, OCR received a complaint against Plaintiff, in which the complainant “alleged ... that [Plaintiff] discriminated against her son ..., a student at Ardsley High School and a member of the Ardsley [High School] basketball team, on the basis of his race.” (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6–7 (Dkt. No. 20).) Specifically, the complainant alleged that Plaintiff “failed to appropriately respond to an incident of racial harassment which allegedly occurred” approximately one week earlier, on February 18, 2011, “at a basketball game played at Pearl River High School between the Pearl River High School team and the Ardsley High School team,” at which “a spectator alleged[ly] yelled a racial slur as the [complainant's son] came onto the basketball court to play in the game.” (Id. ¶ 7.)
In response, Plaintiff conducted what it describes in its Amended Complaint as “a prompt and comprehensive investigation into the allegations made by the [c]omplainant,” “which included [Plaintiff] interviewing 31 witnesses and viewing a video recording of the basketball game.” (Id. ¶ 8.) These 31 interviewees included students, staff, and coaches from within the school district, as well as staff from Ardsley High School, the referees from the game, and other members of the community. (Id. ) However, according to Plaintiff, its “investigation revealed no credible evidence suggesting that an incident of racial harassment had occurred,” as “[n]one of the witnesses heard the alleged racial slur uttered, and the slur could not be detected on the video recording of the basketball game.” (Id. ¶ 9.)
On March 10, 2011, OCR notified Plaintiff by letter that “it was opening an investigation regarding [the complainant's] allegation” “in accordance with its duties to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... and its implementing regulation[s] ..., which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs and activities receiving financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff reproduced portions of that letter in its Amended Complaint:
(Id. (emphasis removed).)
OCR also provided Plaintiff with “a copy of the OCR Complaint Processing Procedures,” from which much of the language from OCR's March 10 letter appears to have been drawn:
A complaint may also be resolved before the conclusion of the investigation, if the recipient expresses an interest in resolving the complaint. If OCR determines that the resolution of the complaint before the conclusion of the investigation is appropriate, OCR will attempt to negotiate an agreement with the recipient. OCR will notify the complainant of the recipient's request of the complaint and will keep the complainant informed throughout all stages of the resolution process. The provisions of the resolution agreement that is reached must be aligned with the complaint allegations and the information obtained during the investigation, and must be consistent with applicable regulations. A resolution agreement reached before the conclusion of the investigation will be monitored by OCR.
(Id. ¶ 11 (emphasis removed).)
The Complaint Processing Procedures also state the following:
(Id. ¶ 13 (emphasis removed).)
After receiving the March 10, 2011 letter, Plaintiff contacted OCR Compliance Team Investigator Geraldo Perez (“Mr. Perez”), in order “to express [Plaintiff's] interest in resolving the complaint through execution of a resolution agreement in accordance with Sections 302 and 304 of the OCR Case Processing Manual” (“the CPM”). (Id. ¶ 14 (emphasis removed).) Plaintiff noted that its “interest in resolving the complaint through execution of a resolution agreement” was “notwithstanding its strong belief that its comprehensive investigation yielded no credible evidence suggesting that the alleged incident occurred.” (Id. ¶ 15.)
Section 302, the first section of the CPM that Plaintiff cited, reads in part as follows:
A complaint may be resolved at any time when, before the conclusion of an investigation, the recipient expresses an interest in resolving the complaint. OCR should inform the recipient that this process is voluntary. OCR's determination that it is appropriate to resolve the complaint during the course of an investigation must be approved by the Office Director or designee. If approved, OCR will immediately notify the complainant of the recipient's interest in resolving the complaint and will keep the complainant informed throughout all stages of this resolution process. The provisions of the resolution agreement will be aligned with the complaint allegations or the information obtained during the investigation, and will be consistent with applicable regulations. A copy of the resolution agreement will be included with the resolution letter. Resolution letters and agreements must be approved by the Chief Attorney or designee and the Office Director or designee, in consultation with the Enforcement Director.
(Id. ¶ 17.)1
Section 304, the second such section, includes the following language:
The complaint will be considered resolved and the recipient deemed compliant if the recipient enters into an agreement that, fully performed, will remedy the complaint (pursuant to Section 302) or identified violations (pursuant to Section 303). A copy of the agreement will be included with the resolution letter (if obtained during the investigation, pursuant to Section 302) or letter of finding(s) (if obtained after a compliance determination is made at the end of the investigation, pursuant to Section 303). Resolution agreement planning will be documented in the case file either separately or by reference to the resolution agreement.
(Id. ¶ 18 (emphasis removed).)
On September 29, 2011, Plaintiff “forwarded to all three OCR team members [who] had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Planned Parenthood of N.Y.C., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
......2024 ("Of course, an agency is not free simply to disregard statutory responsibilities: ... allocation, it is reviewable, Ramah Navajo Sch. Bd., Inc. v. Babbitt , 87 F.3d 1338, 1347-49 ...; see Sharkey , 541 F.3d 75, 87 & n.10 ; Pearl River Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Duncan , 56 ......
-
In re Fairway Grp. Holdings Corp.
...... v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund , 135 S. Ct. ..., 189 F.3d 165, 169 n.3 (2d Cir. 1999); Pearl River Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Duncan , 56 F. ......
-
DeFlora Lake Dev. Assocs., Inc. v. Hyde Park (In re DeFlora Lake Dev. Assocs., Inc.)
...... contained in the complaint.’ " Pearl River Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Duncan , 56 ......
-
Altowaiti v. Wolf
...... J.S. ex rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Sch. , 386 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2004). . ... F.Supp.3d at 327 n.11; see also Pearl River Union Free. Sch. Dist. v. Duncan , 56 ......