S.G. v. Success Acad. Charter Sch., Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | 18 Civ. 2484 (KPF) |
| Parties | S.G., on behalf of herself and on behalf of her child, K.B., Plaintiffs, v. SUCCESS ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOLS, INC., EVA MOSKOWITZ, in her individual and official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Success Academy Charter Schools, Inc., JAVERIA KHAN, in her individual and official capacity as Managing Director of Schools for Success Academy Charter Schools, Inc., SUCCESS ACADEMY BRONX 2, and ANGELA INSLEE in her individual and official capacity as Principal of Success Academy Bronx 2, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff S.G., individually and on behalf of her special-needs child, K.B., (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), bring this action against Success Academy Charter Schools Inc. and several of its agents (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, 12141-12165 (the "ADA"); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and the New York State Constitution. While this case initially came to the Court on an application for emergent relief to prevent K.B.'s grade demotion mid-year, S.G. has since withdrawn K.B. from the Success Academy school that he attended. Instead, Plaintiffs now allege that Defendants discriminated against K.B. as a result of his disabilities and engaged in a campaign to drive him from the school.
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). As evidenced during the injunction proceedings, both sides have passionate, deeply-held, and at times warring views on numerous macro and micro issues in education. But the Court's role at this stage of the litigation is limited: to consider the well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiffs' pleadings, and whatever documents the Court may properly consider on a motion to dismiss, and determine whether they survive Defendants' legal challenges. In large measure, they do. For the reasons stated in this Opinion, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
This case began as a challenge under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, and, to a degree hotly disputed between the parties, it still has ties to that legal regime. Accordingly, the Court begins with a primer on litigation under the IDEA.
The IDEA "requires states to provide disabled children with a 'free appropriate public education'" (a "FAPE"). Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 9 (1993) (citation omitted); see R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 174-75 (2d Cir. 2012). Accordingly, school districts must create an individualized education program ("IEP") for each qualifying child in order to ensure that the child receives a FAPE. See R.E., 694 F.3d at 175.
"The IEP, the result of collaborations between parents, educators, and representatives of the school district, sets out the child's present educational performance, establishes annual and short-term objectives for improvements in that performance, and describes the specially designed instruction and services that will enable the child to meet those objectives." T.Y. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 584 F.3d 412, 415 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Lillbask ex rel. Mauclaire v. Conn. Dep't of Educ., 397 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2005)); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A). At the cornerstone of the IDEA is the requirement that the IEP be "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207(1982); see also Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 107 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1998)).
If a parent believes that his or her child's IEP fails to comply with the IDEA, the parent may seek relief by filing a due process complaint with the appropriate state agency. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6). Upon the filing of a due process complaint, federal law mandates that the parent be provided with an impartial due process hearing before the New York City Department of Education's Impartial Hearing Office (the "IHO"). Id. § 1415(f).2 New York law, in turn, requires a parent to pursue his or her claim first before the IHO; once the IHO renders a decision, either party may appeal the decision. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1), (2). After the administrative appeal of the IHO's decision, either party may file an action in state or federal court seeking review of the SRO's decision. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A).
The Court accepts, as it must at this stage, the well-pleaded allegations of the operative pleading, Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (or "SAC"). The SAC recites that Plaintiff K.B. is a ten-year-old child with a disability involving a seizure disorder, as well as diagnoses of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD") and Oppositional Defiant Disorder ("ODD").(SAC ¶ 8). K.B. requires special education services and accommodations because of his disability. (Id.). Plaintiff S.G. is K.B.'s mother. (Id. at ¶ 9). Success Academy Bronx 2 ("Success Academy") is a charter school managed by Success Academy Charter Schools, Inc. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 12).
When K.B. entered kindergarten at Success Academy in 2012, the Department of Education ("DOE") developed an IEP for K.B. describing his disabilities and the services and accommodations that should be provided to him as a result. (Id. at ¶¶ 36, 48-57). Success Academy followed the recommendation of the IEP to place K.B. in an Integrated Co-Teaching class (an "ICT" class), which means a class that includes both general and special education students. (Id. at ¶¶ 49-51). Despite K.B.'s attention difficulties, and the challenges these difficulties created for his school performance, Success Academy promoted K.B. to first grade, and later to second grade at the end of the 2013-2014 school year. (See id. at ¶ 51).
In November 2014, the DOE again evaluated K.B. and determined that his difficulties had affected his ability to perform at grade level. (SAC ¶ 52). Following the 2014-2015 school year, Success Academy decided to keep K.B. in the second grade. (Id. at ¶ 53). "In explaining the decision to retain K.B. in the second grade, school officials claimed that K.B. would not be 'mature enough' to take the standardized tests administered to all third graders in New York State." (Id.). (Id. at ¶ 55). Nonetheless, S.G. did not challenge the decision because she believed that she and the school officials were both working to further her son's best interests. (Id.).
In the summer of 2015, the DOE conducted another evaluation and determined that K.B.'s disabilities required that he be placed in (SAC ¶ 57). During the 2015-2016 school year, S.G. received "on average two calls per week from officials at [Success Academy] demanding that she remove her son from school because of his disruptive behaviors." (Id. at ¶ 146). On multiple occasions during these calls, school officials "threatened to report S.G. to child protective services if she did not respond quickly enough to their calls to remove K.B. from school." (Id. at ¶ 147).
On April 14, 2016, school officials called S.G. "claiming that K.B. had threatened to commit suicide[.]" (SAC ¶ 59). Before S.G. arrived, school staff "had K.B. removed by Emergency Medical Services ('EMS') and taken to the emergency room," where "K.B. told the emergency room personnel that he had not threatened to hurt himself," and was discharged the same day. (Id. at ¶¶ 59-60).
Following the 2015-2016 school year, K.B. was promoted to third grade. (SAC ¶ 63). The threats to report S.G. to child protective services continued into the 2016-2017 school year. (Id. at ¶ 147). During this year, the school and school district also reevaluated K.B.'s need for services. (Id. at ¶ 63). On December 14, 2016, the DOE developed a new IEP, which "again recommended a 12:1 special class program with the related services of counseling." (Id. at ¶ 64). Success Academy officials told S.G. that they did not offer 12:1 classes, and that "she would have to withdraw K.B. from [Success Academy] and place him in a local neighborhood New York City public school if she wanted K.B. to receive a 12:1 class." (Id. at ¶ 65). School officials did not inform S.G. that 12:1 classes "were available in other schools within Defendants' network of charter schools." (Id. at ¶ 66).
S.G. declined to withdraw K.B., and he was kept in the ICT class despite the IEP recommendation. During the 2016-2017 school year, "K.B. met Defendants' promotion criteria and was promoted to the fourth grade for the 2017-2018 school year." (SAC ¶ 68). However, in June 2017, school officials informed S.G. that they might demote K.B. back to third grade during the upcoming school year. (Id.). At the end of the 2016-2017 school year, S.G. signed a reenrollment letter "affirming her intention to continue K.B.'s enrollment" at Success Academy. (Id. at ¶ 70...
To continue reading
Request your trial