D.H. v. Scranton School District, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59585 (M.D. Pa. 2025, March 31, 2025)
ADA and Section 504 claims upheld arising from teacher’s continuous conduct towards an identified student.
Background
Parents Matthew Hartzell and Courtny Roberts (“Parents”) enrolled their son (“Child”) in the Scranton School District (“District”) beginning in the 2021-2022 school year. The Child’s placement was in a special education class at the District intermediate school, as he was diagnosed with several disabilities, including autism and ADHD, among others. Erica Stolan (“Teacher”) was the class instructor. It was alleged that various District employees and outside agency personnel witnessed Teacher’s abusive conduct toward the Child and other special education students in the class. Child’s mother spoke repeatedly to the school principal and vice principal about the Teacher’s behavior, and the mother had begged them and the special education director (“Officials”) at an IEP meeting to move her Child because of the Teacher’s behavior. No transfer occurred until early 2023 when Teacher allegedly sprayed a liquid substance in the Child’s face. The following day Teacher shoved Child out of his chair, causing him to fall to the floor; she also directed and allowed other students to strike the student as he was dragged feet-first out of the classroom. She also used abusive language toward Child. A report of suspected child abuse was made to law enforcement, and local police conducted an investigation. After these incidents, the principal was removed from the school, but the other Officials remained in their positions.
Discussion
Parents, individually and as parents of their Child subsequently filed suit in federal court raising a number of claims including civil rights charges for violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education (“IDEA”), violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and various state law tort claims against the District and Officials. Upon Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the District Court dismissed the IDEA claims because, before being able to sue under that statute, a party must generally exhaust their administrative remedies: here by going through IDEA due process. Parents contended that they were not required to such exhaustion because the basis of their complaint did not relate to the Child’s FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) and because the complaint sought damages. The Court disagreed as it concluded the claims were based on FAPE; accordingly, such claims would be dismissed for failure of exhaustion.
In contrast, for the ADA and the Section 504 claims, the Court found that the Parents properly set forth their claims as they alleged the District failed to provide Child with the same protection and opportunities that other students were provided, resulting in discrimination due to Child’s disabilities. Further, the Court stated the Parents properly alleged under the ADA claim that the District was aware that the Child had disabilities, but despite that knowledge, the District failed to ensure that improper abuse would not be perpetuated upon the Child by the District. In addition, because the Child’s mother complained repeatedly to the District about the Teacher’s cruel and abusive treatment, such abuse continued. All of these allegations were sufficient to provide that the Defendants’ denial of benefits was directly related to the Child’s disability, and the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 504 charges.
Similarly, the Court allowed the civil rights claims to stand. While finding that no District policy or custom existed to cause Child’s injuries, the allegations reflected that Teacher’s continued poor behavior in the class reflected a failure to train, thereby imposing civil rights liability. As to the Parents’ state law claims, the Court explained that under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (“PSTCA”), a local agency (such as a school district) is liable for damages caused by any act of a local agency or employee unless it falls under certain exceptions as the Act. But the PSTCA did not provide an exception for willful misconduct by an agency. As to similar state law claims against the Officials, individuals can be liable for intentional misconduct. No allegations of such misconduct were levied against the Officials except for the Teacher, as it was alleged her actions were in part, extreme and outrageous. Accordingly, such state law charges would not be dismissed against the Teacher. The Court held off ruling on the qualified immunity of Defendants to a remaining civil rights charge and allowed the Parents’ punitive damage claim to continue. Overall, the bulk of the Parents’ claims remained intact.
Practical Advice
As the D.H. case suggests, intentional misbehavior by school personnel toward special education students can impose liability to personnel and the school itself under a number of civil rights and related theories. Failure to address earlier instances of such behavior can be seen as “deliberate indifference” on the part of the school district, which could add to the liability of the school under federal civil rights laws; if the facts are egregious enough, such actions could lead to actionable Pennsylvania state law claims as well.
