The outcome in the recent case Brandi Bryant, as next friend and on behalf of G.L., a minor, v. Dayton Independent School District, 121 LRP 28103, H-21-1547 (S.D. Tex. August 11, 2021) shows the importance of consistent implementation and documentation of 504 and special education accommodations to students. In a preliminary ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pled a claim for
disability discrimination under Section 504 and the court declined to dismiss those claims.
Facts
In May 2019, while G.L. was a Dayton ISD middle school student, he broke his collarbone, making him unable to participate in school summer football activities. G.L. tried playing football in August 2019, but he still felt pain and worried about reinjury. After G.L. transferred out of the football program, the football coaches are alleged to have employed time-honored motivational techniques of Texas football, such as calling him a "quitter," telling other students that
he was "weak" and "a 'p-ssy,'" encouraging the football team not to speak to him, and telling him that "he could not stand in certain areas of the general school bus loading area with his brother because it was for 'football players only.'" The parents, met with the head football coach and complained about the bullying, but complained no action was taken.
Additionally, G.L. had been diagnosed with dyslexia and his accommodations called for him to receive printed notes for his classes and extra time to complete classwork and exams. The parents allege that, beginning in August 2019, G.L.'s math teacher did not provide either accommodation. Instead, she repeatedly told G.L. that dyslexia was not a "real disability." She also allegedly told other students that G.L. cheated on his homework and denied him access to
class-tutoring sessions. The parents repeatedly emailed the eighth-grade assistant principal, asking to meet with her and the math teacher, but they received no response and no meeting occurred. Months later, G.L. was moved to a different teacher's class. There were additional incidents alleged, which ultimately led the family to withdraw G.L. from the school district and led to the filing of a lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court and asserted multiple legal theories, including claims for disability discrimination under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and the Defendants moved to dismiss. In ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, the court analyzed the facts and determined the claims regarding the actions of the math teacher were for disability discrimination and not claims for a denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education. For that
reason, there was no administrative exhaustion requirement prior to filing suit. She denied dismissal on the basis of failure to exhaust.
In deciding whether to dismiss the intentional disability discrimination claims, the court ruled that the amended complaint alleged that G.L. had a disability that the school and the math teacher knew about. The school committed to provide him accommodations of which his math teacher was aware, and she intentionally refused to provide them. Those allegations stated a plausible claim of intentional discrimination under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act against Dayton
ISD, based on the teacher's conduct. The defendants' motion to dismiss was denied as to those claims.
The court analyzed the remaining claims and dismissed substantially all of the claims, but she declined to dismiss the claims for intentional discrimination based on disability under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
Take-Away
For many years, special education directors have asked questions about liability for teachers who refuse to implement accommodations and very few examples exist, with the exception of Doe v. Withers, 20 IDELR 422 (WV June 16, 1993), which was a West Virginia state court ruling. This case illustrates that federal courts in Texas will scrutinize claims such as these and might impose liability if the facts warrant. While the district may ultimately
prevail, it will need to be able to demonstrate implementation of the student’s accommodations through documentation that demonstrates accommodations were implemented. Documentation need not be burdensome for the teachers, but it can be critical in cases such as this where the teacher is alleged to have harassed a student by statements and by refusing to provide accommodations.
Should you have questions about this or any other disability related questions, please feel free to contact Sara Leon & Associates, PLLC.
