Vergara ex rel. CMRV v. Wesleyan Acad., Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 17-1013 (PG) |
| Parties | AIXA VERGARA, on her own and on behalf of her minor son CMRV, EDGARDO NERIS TORRES, Plaintiffs, v. WESLEYAN ACADEMY, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Before the court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32), Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition (ECF No. 50), and Defendants' Reply (ECF No. 58). For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion.
On January 4, 2017, Plaintiffs Aixa Vergara ("Vergara"), on her own and on behalf of her son "CMRV," and the minor's step-father Edgardo Neris Torres (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed this suit against Wesleyan Academy, Inc. ("Wesleyan" or "the School"), Wesleyan's Headmaster, President and Executive Director, Fernando J. Vazquez Zayas ("Vazquez"), and Wesleyan's High School Principal, Ingrid Llorens de Pagan ("Ms. Llorens") (collectively, "Defendants"). See Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs allege that Wesleyan and its employees discriminated against CMRV because of his physical and mental disabilities by expelling him and refusing to provide him reasonable accommodations. Plaintiffs also allege retaliation for engaging in protected conduct. They claim Defendants' actions are in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("Section 504"), as well as Puerto Rico statutes prohibiting disability discrimination and retaliation and cyberbullying. Plaintiffs request compensatory and punitive damages under federal and Puerto Rico laws.
Plaintiffs' complaint included a request for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"), which the court granted in part. See Op. and Order from January 7, 2017, ECF No. 3. The court ordered Defendants to readmit CMRV as a student and allow him to continue his eleventh-grade studies at Wesleyan. Since Plaintiffs also sought a preliminary injunction, the court set a hearing for January 13, 2017. However, on that date, the parties agreed to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction or pendente lite. ECF No. 14.1 Later that month, the court held a status conference during which case management deadlines de rigueur were set. ECF Nos. 18, 29. Defendants now move for summary judgment and Plaintiffs oppose their request.
A motion for summary judgment is governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which entitles a party to judgment if "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "When the party who bears the burden of proof at trial is faced with a properly constituted summary judgment motion, defeating the motion depends on her ability to show that such a dispute exists." Geshke v. Crocs, Inc., 740 F.3d 74, 77 (1st Cir. 2014) (citing Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2010)).
At the summary judgment juncture, the court must examine the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant, indulging that party with all possible inferences to be derivedfrom the facts. See Rochester Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 287 F.3d 32, 38 (1st Cir. 2002). The court need not "draw unreasonable inferences or credit bald assertions, empty conclusions, rank conjecture or vitriolic invective." Cherkaoui v. City of Quincy, 877 F.3d 14, 23 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting Pina v. Children's Place, 740 F.3d 785, 795 (1st Cir. 2014)). The court reviews the record "as a whole," and "may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 135 (2000). This is so because credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge. Id.
If the non-movant generates uncertainty as to the true state of any material fact, the movant's efforts should be deemed unavailing. Suarez v. Pueblo Int'l, 229 F.3d 49, 53 (1st Cir. 2000). But the mere existence of "some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not affect an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986). See Cherkaoui, 877 F.3d at 23-24 (quoting Sanchez v. Alvarado, 101 F.3d 223, 227 (1st Cir. 1996)) ( that "[f]acts are material when they have the 'potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law'" and that "[a] dispute is 'genuine' if 'the evidence about the fact is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in favor of the non-moving party'").
Aixa Vergara is CMRV's mother. CMRV is a disabled student with physical and mental disabilities. He began his studies at Wesleyan in Kindergarten. ECF No. 1 ¶ 16; Pls.' Statement of Material Facts Which Preclude Entry of Summ. J. in Defs.' favor pursuant to Local Rule 56(c), (e) ("PSMF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 50-2. CMRV suffers from the following mental and physical impairments: Attention Deficit Disorder ("ADD") with predominately-inattentive hyperactivity; severe major depression; fine motor skills problems; visual perception difficulties and renal insufficiency. Ecf No. 1 ¶ 11. These impairments, according to plaintiffs, substantially limit various life activities, like his ability to study, to learn and to excrete urine. Id. at ¶ 14.
Wesleyan Academy is a private, non-profit, evangelical Christian school affiliated with the Wesleyan Church that receives federal funds or financial assistance from the United States Department of Education. See Defs.' Statement of Uncontested Material Facts ("SUMF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 32-1; ECF No. 1 ¶ 18; Answer to Compl. ¶¶ 17-18, ECF No. 22. The Wesleyan School Community Handbook states that the School "strives to present a Christian world view and democratic values in an environment of academic excellence." SUMF ¶ 1.2
At the time of the events alleged in the complaint, Co-Defendant Vazquez was Wesleyan's President and Executive Director; Co-Defendant Ms. Llorens, Wesleyan's High School Principal; Betsey Cora ("Ms. Cora"), the High School Guidance Counselor; Leyda Mercado, another Student Counselor; and Betzaida Flores, Wesleyan's Social Worker. See, e.g., SUMF ¶¶ 47 & 64; PSMF ¶ 10.
The Wesleyan Academy Policy Manual states that the school's opportunities are offered regardless of social or political factors, and prohibits discrimination "in any of its policies, practices, or procedures on the basis of race, class, color, national origin, sex, or handicap as defined by law." SUMF ¶ 2.3 The Manual also provides that "Wesleyan admits and welcomes students of any race or class, color, national and ethnic origin, sex orhandicap, and does not discriminate on this basis in admissions or in any area of the school life and program." SUMF ¶ 3 (quoting Ex. 2, ECF No. 32-3 at 5).
Under the Manual, the basic qualifications for admission are: "(1) desire to attend [the school]; (2) demonstrate[] average or above average academic ability; (3) a pattern of obedient behavior, and (4) evidence of being able to live in harmony with our purposes and way of life." SUMF ¶ 3. The Manual warns that by enrolling in the school, students and their parents accept and agree to comply with Wesleyan's policies, rules and regulations. Id. ¶ 4. Wesleyan has a Procedure Manual for the Implementation of the Reasonable Accommodation Passport for Post-Secondary Education. It is not incorporated in the Handbook or the Policy Manual. PSMF ¶ 39.
In January of 2005, Vergara applied to enroll her minor son in kindergarten at Wesleyan, for the 2005-2006 school year. SUMF ¶ 5. Throughout elementary school, CMRV struggled to meet Wesleyan's academic and conduct standards. Wesleyan continually conditioned CMRV's admission and enrollment on his academic improvement and other requirements. Id. ¶¶ 6-7, 11, 17-18, 19.4 CMRV had to be tutored, attend summer school forSpanish and math subjects, undergo evaluations or receive occupational therapy. Vergara did not always comply with some of the requests and conditions established by the school. Id. ¶¶ 8, 10-12, 17-22.
In 2009, clinical psychologist Dr. Amalyn Perez Rivera ("Dr. Perez"), began evaluating CMRV. In her first psychological evaluation report, Dr. Perez concluded that CMRV did not show any difficulties associated with attention deficit, following instructions or other problems of distraction. Nonetheless, Dr. Perez's report advised that CMRV needed to strengthen his interpersonal relationship skills and social interactions. Id. ¶¶ 13-15.5
On March 9, 2009, Dr. Perez provided a second psychological evaluation report. This time, Dr. Perez found that CMRV showed a "[s]light lag in fluidity skills in writing and redaction" and a "[s]ignificant lag in fluidity skills in mathematics." Id. ¶ 16.
When CMRV was in eighth grade, Vergara enrolled him in an after-school music program at the Puerto Rico Conservatory of Music (the "Conservatory"). He continued to participate in the music program throughout his middle school and high school years. Id. ¶ 23. CMRV finished his eighth grade with the following grades: English, 71%; Math, 65%; Science, 87%; Physical Education, 98%; Spanish, 72%; Social Studies, 58%; Bible, 55%; Music, 90%; Art, 86%; Communication, 71%. Id. ¶ 24; PSMF ¶ 11. CMRV thus had to attend Wesleyan's summer program, where he obtained 32% in Social Studies and 88% in Bible. SUMF ¶ 25.
As noted before, CMRV continued to participate in the Conservatory's after-school music program throughout ninth grade. Id. ¶ 26. Vergara considered not enrolling him for the first semester of ninth grade so that he could focus on school. Id. ¶ 29. Later during that semester, CMRV e-mailed his Physical Science teacher, Aidyn Fontanez ("Fontanez"), with concerns about his performance and grade in the class. CMRV...
To continue reading
Request your trial