Piotrowski ex rel. J.P. v. Rocky Point Union Free Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 28 May 2020
• Docket Number: 18-CV-6262 (RRM) (SIL)
• Citation: 462 F.Supp.3d 270
• Parties: Merideth PIOTROWSKI, ON BEHALF OF her minor child, J.P., Plaintiff, v. ROCKY POINT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

462 F.Supp.3d 270

Merideth PIOTROWSKI, ON BEHALF OF her minor child, J.P., Plaintiff,

v.ROCKY POINT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

18-CV-6262 (RRM) (SIL)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed May 28, 2020

Daniel O. Phelan, Type 1 Action Foundation, Inc., Huntington, NY, for Plaintiffs.

David Ferdinand Kwee, Ingerman Smith, L.L.P, Hauppauge, NY, for Defendants the Board of Education of the Rocky Point Union Free School District, James Moeller, Michael Gabriel, Susann Crossan, the Rocky Point Union Free School District, Susan Sullivan, Sean Callahan, Greg Amendola, Ed Casswell, Joseph Coniglione, Andrea Moscatiello, Kristen White.

Daniel E. Furshpan, Suffolk County Department of Law, Hauppauge, NY, for Defendants Suffolk County, Jessie Mayer, the Suffolk County Department of Probation.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, Chief United States District Judge.

On November 2, 2018, plaintiff Merideth Piotrowski brought this action on behalf of her minor child, J.P., asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" § 1983"); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"); the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ; and various provisions of New York state law. Piotrowski seeks compensatory and punitive damages in connection with defendants’ treatment of her son, who receives accommodations in association with his type 1 diabetes. Presently before the Court are defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the second amended complaint, unless otherwise noted, and the Court assumes the allegations in the complaint to be true for the purpose of the motions.

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff resides in the Suffolk County hamlet of Rocky Point, New York, where her minor child, J.P., has been enrolled as a student in the Rocky Point Union Free School District ("the District") since September 2008. (Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") (Doc. No. 30.) at ¶¶ 3–4.)

In March 2013, J.P. was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes

and given accommodations under Section 504, referred to as a "504 Plan." (Id. ¶ 27.) J.P.’s diabetes

became unmanageable in 2015 resulting in extreme hyperglycemia. (Id. ¶ 29.) J.P.’s 504 Plan was merged into an Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") when J.P. was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder ("ADHD"). (Id. ¶ 28.) J.P.’s symptoms worsened in 2015 causing him to become extremely sick and suffer from stomach pains, bad headaches, extreme thirst, unusually high urine production, tiredness, shortness of energy, itchy skin, and extreme irritability. (Id. ¶¶ 29–30.) These symptoms caused J.P. to have extreme difficulty waking up and getting his day started. (Id. ¶ 31.) J.P. began missing school and became irritable because of his diabetes and extreme hyperglycemia. (Id. ¶¶ 31–33.) Because of his diabetes diagnosis, J.P. is classified as a student with disabilities under Section 504 and under Section 12132 of the ADA. (Id. ¶¶ 23–24.)

The complaint details multiple incidents in which Piotrowski claims that J.P. was discriminated against on the basis of his disability. In May 2016, Ms. Meyers, one of J. P.’s teachers at Rocky Point Middle School ("RPMS") and not a defendant in this action, stated: "what is the probability that [J.P.] did his homework? Zero percent?" (Id. ¶ 34.) In June 2016, James Moeller, the Assistant Principal at RPMS, told J.P. that he was "a very influential kid, that other kids followed in his footsteps, and that he was going to make an example of him." (Id. ¶ 35.) Piotrowski met with Deborah DeLuca, the Assistant Superintendent of the District, to discuss the comments. (Id. ¶ 36.)

In June 2017, Piotrowski received notice from the District's Committee on Special Education ("CSE") that it would be meeting to discuss J.P.’s absences from school and tardiness. (Id. ¶ 38.) The CSE met that month and determined that none of J.P.’s absences from school or tardiness was attributable to his diabetes. (Id. ¶¶ 39–40.) Piotrowski contends that the CSE did not consider J.P.’s medical history when it reached that conclusion. (Id. ¶ 41.)

On June 26, 2017, Moeller, acting on behalf of the District filed a Persons in Need of Supervision ("PINS") Petition in Suffolk County Family Court based on J.P.’s absences and tardiness. (Id. ¶¶ 42–43.) J.P. was arraigned on the PINS petition and admitted to the absences listed in the PINS petition. (Id. ¶¶ 39–40.) On August 2, 2017, the Family Court issued an Order placing J.P. on probation for one year, requiring J.P. to participate in psychotherapy, cooperate with home base services, be home by 3:00 p.m. on school nights and 7:00 p.m. on non-school nights, and submit to drug testing. (Id. ¶¶ 47–48.) J.P.’s curfew was later amended to extend it on school nights to 5:00 p.m. (Id. ¶ 49.)

Beginning in September 2017, J.P. enrolled at the Rocky Point High School ("RPHS"). (Id. ¶ 26.) On November 24, 2017, the Suffolk County Department of Probation submitted a petition to the Family Court alleging that J.P. violated the terms of his probation. (Id. ¶ 50.) The complaint does not specify who filed the petition. The petition stated that J.P. arrived late to the Probation office and continued to bring his cell phone to school in violation of school rules and subsequent to receiving a warning from a school official and a directive from Probation to leave his cell phone at home for two weeks. (Id. ¶¶ 50–52.)

On December 11, 2017, the Family Court issued an amended order which changed J.P.’s curfew, ordered J.P. not to bring his cell phone to school, and required J.P. to take a class on type 1 diabetes management. (Id. ¶¶ 54–55.) The requirement that J.P. take a class on diabetes

management was later changed to a requirement that he submit a short essay on type 1 diabetes

. (Id. )

J.P. was given detention in early 2018 "for being in the school nurse's office for the sole purpose of testing his blood sugar." (Id. ¶ 56.) Michael Gabriel, the Assistant principal of RPMS, issued the detention and identified the infraction for which J.P. purportedly received detention: J.P. was found "roaming the halls with his girlfriend." (Id. ¶ 57.) However, when asked why J.P.’s girlfriend had not also received detention, Gabriel admitted to Piotrowski that J.P.’s girlfriend had been in class. (Id. ) Gabriel later told J.P. that he was "abusing his ‘privilege’ in visiting the nurse to test his blood sugar." (Id. ¶ 58.) According to Piotrowski, punishing J.P. for testing his blood sugar ignored the accommodations outlined in J.P.’s IEP and disregarded his medical needs. (Id. ¶ 59.)

In April 2018, J.P. began using a device called the Dexcom Continuous Glucose Monitor

, which allows diabetics to monitor their blood sugar throughout the day using an app downloadable on a cell phone. (Id. ¶ 60.) One of the added benefits of this system is that Piotrowski is able to track J.P.’s blood sugar using the same app. (Id. ¶ 61.) J.P.’s IEP was supposed to be updated on May 11, 2018, "to put all staff on notice that J.P. was allowed to utilize his cell phone at all times while on school premises, as it is categorized as a medical device, in order to monitor his blood glucose levels and assist him in effectively managing his Type 1 Diabetes." (Id. ¶ 63.) However, Piotrowski later learned that J.P.’s IEP had not been properly updated to reflect the new accommodation agreed upon on May 11, 2018. (Id. ¶ 77.)

On October 30, 2018, Gabriel and Susann Crossan, the Principal of RPHS, issued J.P. a one-day, in-school suspension for having his cell phone out during class and for being insubordinate. (Id. ¶ 65.) Piotrowski contends that this suspension was inappropriate because J.P.’s cell phone is a medical device. (Id. ¶ 66.) After J.P. served his suspension, Mayer called Piotrowski on November 2, 2018, to tell her that the Probation Department was filing a petition in Family Court alleging that J.P. violated the terms of his probation when he was suspended from school. (Id. ¶¶ 67–68.) Mayer was aware that J.P. used his phone to monitor his blood sugar and that J.P.’s IEP allowed him to use his phone to monitor his blood sugar while at school. (Id. ¶ 68.) On December 5, 2018, the Family Court ordered J.P. to participate in the Sagamore Intensive Day Program for 30 days, for both education programs and psychiatric evaluation. (Id. ¶¶ 74–75.)

On December 7, 2018, Kristen White, the Director of Support Services for the District, informed Piotrowski that due to an administrative error, J.P.’s IEP was never properly provided to RPHS and therefore the school did not have "notice that J.P. was allowed to have his cell phone in school at all times during the course of the school day in order to monitor his blood glucose levels." (Id. ¶ 77.)

J.P. has not attended school since November 2, 2018. (Id. ¶ 72.) He was advised by a physician and psychologist that he should not attend school and should be homeschooled because of his severe stress and high blood pressure. (Id. ¶¶ 69–70.) As of November 2018, J.P. was receiving home tutoring provided by the District. (Id. )

II. Plaintiff's Pleadings

As stated above, on November 2, 2018, Piotrowski commenced this action against the District, the Board of Education of the District ("the Board"), Moeller, Gabriel, Crossan, Suffolk County, the Suffolk County Department of Probation, and Mayer. (Compl. (Doc. No. 1) ¶¶ 6–14.) The complaint alleges three federal causes of action.

The first cause of action is for a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" § 1983") against defendants Moeller, Gabriel, Crossan, and Mayer. (Id. ¶¶ 62–72.) Piotrowski alleges that the defendants violated J.P.’s Fourteenth Amendment right to Equal Protection by failing to abide by J.P.’s 504 Plan and failing to adequately accommodate his disability. (Id. ¶¶...