PITTSBURGH — The Hempfield Area School District has filed a brief in support of its motion to partially dismiss a lawsuit that alleges it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 17, centers around allegations that a mentally disabled teenager was bullied to the point of attempted suicide.
The parents of the child claim that, despite informing the school district of the bullying, no preventative actions were taken.
“The lack of access to necessary elements of his educational program resulted in harm to [the child], including cognitive, psychological and socio-relational damage," the complaint reads. "Despite its knowledge that he was not receiving the educational services specified in his IEP, the district failed to act to correct this harm.”
The complaint alleges violations of the ADA and seeks relief under Section 1983, which enables plaintiffs to file suit for civil rights violations against states in federal court. Section 1983 also allows a prevailing plaintiff to collect attorney’s fees. Monetary damages are also being sought in this case.
The plaintiffs in this case charge the defendants with displaying “deliberate indifference” toward the discrimination of a disabled person. To succeed, the plaintiffs claim that they must “show that the district had knowledge that a violation to a federally protected right was substantially likely," and "a failure to act upon that likelihood,” according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs are also bringing an associational discrimination claim under the ADA. An associational discrimination claim alleges that the discrimination inflicted on the disabled person caused a direct injury to the plaintiffs. To succeed, the plaintiffs must show that an association exists, the public entity knew of that association and discriminated against them because of it.
The defendants have filed a partial motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6). In order for a 12(b)(6) motion to be successful, the moving party must show that the claim is not plausible because of a lack of factual evidence.
The district, for its part, has argued for dismissal because the vocational program (VTP) that administered most of the child's schooling allegedly was not an agent of the school. Therefore, the school claims that it cannot be held liable for its action or lack of action.
The district’s central argument is that it could not maintain enough control over the VTP's actions. According to the district, the fact that that the school had an interest in the outcome of VTP’s educational services is not entirely indicative of an agency relationship.
“[I]n order to plead an agency relationship sufficient to allege the school district was somehow liable for the acts and/or omissions of VTP personnel, the plaintiffs must set forth factual averments demonstrating the school district's ability to control the manner in which VTP supervised [the child] and how the VTP was required to respond to bullying," the defendant's brief reads. "However, the complaint lacks any factual support to demonstrate, or even infer, that the school district retained this control."
The defense also contends that the plaintiffs’ claim of associational discrimination was illegitimate. They put forth that the plaintiff’s mother, the person claiming associational discrimination, “fail[ed] to allege discrimination separate and distinct from the discrimination alleged by her son,” according to the brief.