Rice v. Governing Auth. of the Bio-Med Sci. Acad.
| Decision Date | 31 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 5:20-cv-2199 |
| Parties | YVONE RICE, et al., PLAINTIFFS, v. GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF THE BIO-MED SCIENCE ACADEMY, et al., DEFENDANTS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Plaintiffs Yvone Rice and Ralph Rice (“plaintiffs”) individually and on behalf of their minor son, E.R., filed suit on September 29, 2020, asserting violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”), 29 U.S.C § 794, against the following entities: Governing Authority of the Bio-Med Science Academy (“Governing Authority”), Northeast Ohio Medical University (“NEOMED”), and Educational Service Center Council of Governments Governing Board (“ESC-COG”) (collectively “defendants[1]”).
Now before the Court are the following fully briefed dispositive motions: (1) the motion of Governing Authority for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 21 (Motion), Doc. No. 24 (Opposition), Doc. No. 26 (Reply)); (2) the motion of ESC-COG for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 28 (Motion), Doc. No. 30 (Opposition), Doc. No. 33 (Reply)); and (3) the motion of NEOMED for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 29 (Motion), Doc. No. 30 (Opposition), [2] Doc. No. 32 (Reply).) Because plaintiffs must first exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking relief in this Court, defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings are granted and the case is dismissed without prejudice.
The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC') provides a historical narrative of what led to the issues in this case which ultimately involve the extent to which school personnel need to assist and care for a student's service dog during the school day and the nature of the training the personnel are required to undergo. While initially plaintiffs indicated that school personnel would not be required to walk, feed, or afford the service dog an opportunity to relive herself, as discussions regarding what might be needed progressed and evolved, plaintiffs requested more from school personnel. The school agreed to assume certain responsibilities for the service dog and sent school personnel to a training session with one of the plaintiffs. During the training session for school personnel, a dispute apparently arose relating to their duties, and the training was not completed. This lawsuit ensued. The background for the lawsuit, as set forth in the SAC and other Rule 12(c)-permitted materials, follows.
Plaintiffs live with their minor son, E.R., in Portage County, Ohio. (Doc. No. 16 (SAC) ¶ 6.) E.R. began attending Bio-Med Science Academy (the “Academy”) as a sixth-grade student. (Id. ¶ 17.) Governing Authority is a public school district that operates the Academy. (Id. ¶ 7.) ESC-COG is a publicly funded political subdivision that, since January 1, 2020, has supplied personnel for administrative and teaching roles at the Academy. (Id. ¶ 8.) Prior to January 1, 2020, these employment services were provided by NEOMED. (Id. ¶ 9.)
E.R. has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), disturbance in sleep behavior, epistaxis, migraines, and situational anxiety. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 21, 23.) “Autism inhibits E.R.'s ability to perceive danger, and causes meltdowns, elopement (wandering), and stimming (repetitive body movements or repetitive movement of objects, such as flapping arms over and over).” (Id. ¶ 24.) These impairments limit E.R.'s “major bodily functions, including his brain function and neurological system, and his ability to engage in major life activities of caring for himself, walking, speaking, learning, thinking, and communicating.” (Id. ¶ 25.)
To address the limitations associated with his autism, E.R. was prescribed a service animal. (Id. ¶ 28.) E.R's service dog, Greta, is trained to sit down to prevent E.R. from eloping, to apply pressure to prevent or limit his meltdowns, and to disrupt stimming. (Id. ¶¶ 38, 42.) As initially presented to the Academy, plaintiffs indicated that Greta does not need to be walked, fed, or afforded an opportunity to relieve herself during the school day. (Id. ¶ 43.) Plaintiffs also indicated that E.R. is able to control Greta at school using a tether. (Id. ¶ 44.) And he is able to give Greta appropriate verbal commands unless he is experiencing an autistic meltdown, during which he may temporarily require assistance. (Id. ¶ 45.)
Citing to defendants' answer, plaintiffs concede that E.R. receives special education and related services from Governing Authority through an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) administered pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (Doc. No. 24 at 2, citing Doc. No. 19 (Answer to the SAC) ¶ 21; see Doc. No. 19¶¶ 20, 25-27, 46, 128.)
On March 19, 2019, plaintiff Yvone Rice met with Governing Authority personnel to request an aide to assist in the handling of Greta during the moments when E.R. is experiencing an autistic meltdown. (Doc. No. 16 ¶ 46.) While the SAC simply refers to this event as a “meeting, ” it is undisputed that the meeting was an IEP team meeting held pursuant to the IDEA. (Doc. No. 19 ¶¶ 46-47; see Doc. No. 16 ¶ 46.) According to plaintiffs, Governing Authority mis-characterized their request as a request for an aide to replace E.R. as Greta's handler (as opposed to someone who would assist handling Greta in certain circumstances) and denied the same as “‘not necessary to provide [a] FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) to [E.R.].'” (Doc. No. 16 ¶ 48, quoting March 19, 2019 “report”.) Though plaintiffs allege that the denial appeared simply in a “report of the March 19, 2019, meeting” (see id.), they do not deny that it was prepared pursuant to the written notice requirements of the IDEA.
Mrs. Rice attended another IEP team meeting on May 15, 2019 wherein she, once again, requested that Governing Authority “reasonably accommodate E.R.'s needs for assistance in handling Greta.” (Doc. No. 16 ¶ 51; Doc. No. 19 ¶ 51.) Governing Authority denied the request, and its denial was memorialized in an IDEA-required written notice issued to plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 16 ¶§ 51-53; Doc. No. 19 ¶¶ 51-54; Doc. No. 19-2 (5/15/2019 IEP Meeting Notice) at 1 [].) On May 20, 2019, Mrs. Rice emailed the Academy to notify Governing Authority that plaintiffs “intended to appeal” its “denial of their accommodation request[.]”[4] (Doc. No. 16 ¶ 59; Doc. No. 19 ¶ 59.)
Eventually, plaintiffs retained counsel who, by written correspondence dated July 15, 2019, advised Governing Authority that plaintiffs were seeking that Academy personnel be trained to give Greta “‘a command in situations where, due to conditions related to his disability, [E.R.] is unable to give a command.'” (Doc. No. 16 ¶ 85, quoting Doc. No. 16-5 (Letter from Counsel) at 1.) In a follow-up letter dated August 28, 2019, counsel clarified that plaintiffs were requesting that an aide and a back-up be trained to assist E.R. when he is unable because of his disability to: (1) give appropriate commands to Greta during a meltdown to ease E.R.'s symptoms; (2) tether and untether Greta; (3) take the service animal on potty breaks; (4) escort E.R. and Greta through the school; and (5) issue and reinforce specific commands to Greta to ensure E.R.'s safety and enhance his social skills and independence. (Doc. No. 16-6 (Letter) at 1; see Doc. No. 16 ¶ 86.)
In responses to this request, Governing Authority agreed to permit plaintiffs to conduct a one-hour training session with certain Academy staff members. (Doc. No. 16 ¶ 90.) According to plaintiffs, the training session, however, proved to be “wholly inadequate to train [Academy] personnel to assist E.R. in handling Greta.” (Id.) This was due, in part, to the fact that Governing Authority “repeatedly disrupted” the training session by interjecting that its counsel “had instructed [it] that [school personnel] did not need to do what [p]laintiffs were attempting to train them to do.” (Id. ¶ 91.) Governing Authority subsequently agreed to an additional one-half hour training session “‘for the completion of the training[.]'” (Id. ¶ 92, quoting Doc. No. 16-7 (Letter from Counsel) at 1.) According to plaintiffs, “[o]ne and one-half hours of training for [the] Academy's personnel to assist [E.R.] in handling Greta, when [p]laintiffs had spent two full weeks training with Greta, [was] grossly insufficient.” (Id. ¶ 94.)
It is unclear from the pleadings whether this subsequent training session ever took place. In any event, plaintiffs allege that Governing Authority's failure to accommodate their request for adequate training of Academy personnel to assist E.R. in handling Greta has resulted in E.R. and Greta being separated during the school day. (Id. ¶ 98.) This separation has caused E.R. to miss out on classroom instruction during autistic meltdowns. (Id.; see, e.g., Id. ¶¶ 99-101.)
Plaintiffs raise two claims against all defendants. In the first cause of action, plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to reasonably accommodate E.R.'s disability in violation of the ADA by refusing to provide adequately trained Academy staff to assist E.R. in handling Greta. (See Doc No. 16 ¶¶ 112-22.) In the second cause of action, plaintiffs allege that, because of defendants' failure to reasonably accommodate E.R.'s disability, defendants are “excluding and/or discriminating...
To continue reading
Request your trial