Reid-Witt ex rel. C.W. v. Dist. of Columbia
| Citation | 486 F.Supp.3d 1 |
| Decision Date | 03 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02473 (CJN) |
| Parties | Karla REID-WITT, ON BEHALF OF C.W., Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Charles Anthony Moran, Howard Margulies, Charles A. Sibert, Moran & Associates, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Steven Nathan Rubenstein, Veronica A. Porter, Office of Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
C.W. was a student at Washington's Benjamin Banneker High School before her disabilities interfered with her studies. See generally Am. Compl., ECF No. 7. She was granted various accommodations but her multiple requests for special-education services were denied. See generally id. Unable to maintain consistent attendance, C.W. fell below the requirements for continued enrollment and the school asked her to withdraw. See generally id. After exhausting administrative remedies, C.W.’s mother, Karla Reid-Witt, filed this suit alleging a violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. , and disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. , and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA), D.C. Code § 2-1401.01 et seq. See generally Am. Compl. The District moves to dismiss the discrimination counts for failure to state a claim. See generally Def.’s Partial Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s Am. Compl. ("Mot."), ECF No. 8. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the Motion in part and denies it in part.
Banneker is a selective public high school; among other requirements, students must maintain a minimum grade-point average and a record of community service to remain enrolled.1 Am. Compl. ¶ 74. C.W. entered Banneker in the ninth grade during the 2016–17 school year. Id. ¶ 13. She suffers from anxiety and depression, which cause difficulties with "[self-] organization, time management, completing assignments, memory, and focus," as well as at least two instances of suicidal ideation. Id. ¶¶ 14–15, 47–49.
After a breakdown caused C.W.’s temporary hospitalization in the middle of ninth grade, Reid-Witt requested that the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) arrange an IDEA Individual Education Program for C.W. to complete either at home or in the hospital. Id. ¶ 18. Reid-Witt supplied supporting documentation from C.W.’s therapist. Id. ¶ 20. C.W. remained hospitalized for a portion of the spring semester and "attended Banneker on a part-time basis," but DCPS did not respond to Reid-Witt's request for home study. Id. ¶¶ 19, 25. After C.W. returned to school full-time in May 2017, DCPS informally notified Reid-Witt that C.W. was ineligible for home instruction. Id. ¶¶ 26–28. DCPS instead issued an accommodation plan under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act that permitted C.W. to drop two courses and gave her various testing and learning accommodations. Id. ¶ 30; see also Section 504 Plan of Jun. 9, 2017, ECF No. 8-1. C.W. missed 71 days of the ninth grade. Am. Compl. ¶ 31.
Before C.W.’s tenth-grade year commenced, DCPS formally denied Reid-Witt's request for special-education services. Id. ¶¶ 32–34. It also rejected a request to use an assistive electronic device in class. Id. ¶¶ 37–40; see also Section 504 Plan of Aug. 31, 2017, ECF No. 8-2; Section 504 Plan of Sep. 5, 2017, ECF No. 8-3. C.W. missed 67 days of school during the tenth grade, including one incident during which she ran away from school for the day and another instance of suicidal ideation that required hospitalization. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 42–49. DCPS kept the accommodations in place but maintained its position that C.W. was ineligible for special-education services. Id. ¶¶ 50–53.
The Parties reached an impasse during the eleventh-grade year. C.W. attended school only one day that year, and DCPS repeatedly rejected Reid-Witt's requests for special-education services. Id. ¶¶ 54–72; see also Section 504 Plan of Aug. 27, 2018, ECF No. 8-4. The school informed Reid-Witt that C.W.’s grade-point average and record of community-service hours had fallen below the acceptable minimums and asked her to transfer to one of the District's non-selective high schools. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 73–78; Def.’s Ltr. of Feb. 25, 2019, ECF No. 8-5. Reid-Witt decided instead to homeschool C.W. for the 2019–20 school year but has been largely unsuccessful because of C.W.’s disabilities. Id. ¶¶ 85–89.
Reid-Witt filed an administrative complaint alleging both the denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education and disability discrimination. Id. ¶ 1; see also 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(a) (). On June 10, 2019, a Hearing Officer denied the complaint after finding that C.W. did not qualify for special education under the IDEA and that he lacked jurisdiction over the discrimination claim. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 90–100; Hearing Officer's Decision, ECF No. 1-1. Reid-Witt then filed this lawsuit. The Amended Complaint contains three counts: (I) a challenge to the denial of the IDEA complaint, id. ; (II) disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, id. ¶¶ 101–75; and (III) disability discrimination under the ADA and the DCHRA, id. ¶¶ 176–256. The District moves to dismiss in part, arguing that Counts II and III fail to state a claim. See generally Mot. The District does not yet challenge Count I. See id. at 1.
Ordinarily, "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must "treat the complaint's factual allegations as true ... and must grant plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged." Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft , 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation omitted). Although the Court accepts all well pleaded facts in the Complaint as true, "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "While a complaint ... does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of [her] entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 554–55, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The claim to relief must be "plausible on its face," enough to "nudge [the] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The Court may also consider "any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which [the Court] may take judicial notice." EEOC v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch. , 117 F.3d 621, 624 (D.C. Cir. 1997).2
Reid-Witt's claims fall into three distinct categories even though they arise out of the same events. In Count I, Reid-Witt challenges the Hearing Officer's administrative determination that C.W. was ineligible for special-education services under the IDEA. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 90–100. The IDEA is the primary vehicle for such claims and "is of particular importance in this case." Holmes-Ramsey v. District of Columbia , 747 F. Supp. 2d 32, 35 (D.D.C. 2010). One of the Act's purposes is "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). " ‘Implicit’ in the IDEA's guarantee ‘is the requirement that the education to which access is provided be sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the handicapped child.’ " Holmes-Ramsey , 747 F. Supp. 2d at 35 (quoting Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 200, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982) ). To qualify for protection under the IDEA, a student must have a disability and, "by reason thereof, need[ ] special education and related services." 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A).
The IDEA and its implementing regulations establish a comprehensive administrative process for adjudicating disputes, including the ability to file a due-process complaint and obtain an adjudication from a Hearing Officer. 20 U.S.C. § 1415 ; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507 –15. Complainants who are "aggrieved by the findings and decisions made" by the Hearing Officer may "bring a civil action with respect to the complaint" in the district court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2) ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.516. It is that administrative process in which students and their families may challenge the alleged denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education because of particular problems with a student's Individual Education Plan, or, as in this case, the determination that a student is ineligible for such services altogether. Id. Reid-Witt filed such a complaint and, having received an adverse determination, seeks judicial review of that decision in Count I. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 90–100. If Reid-Witt prevails on her IDEA claim, she will be entitled only to equitable relief in the form of compensatory education and reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs of "educational placements or related services to which [she] is later found to be entitled." Walker v. District of Columbia , 969 F. Supp. 794, 795–96 (D.D.C. 1997).
Reid-Witt's other two sets of claims allege disability discrimination more...
To continue reading
Request your trial