Quantcast

Lawsuit: Homeless students denied equal access to schools in Salisbury Township, in violation of federal law

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, November 24, 2024

Lawsuit: Homeless students denied equal access to schools in Salisbury Township, in violation of federal law

Federal Court
Michaeldraffaele

Raffaele | Raffaele & Associates

ALLENTOWN – A federal court lawsuit alleges that the Salisbury Township School District denied two minor students equal access to its public schools, instead of their being entitled to immediate enrollment in the district where they were enrolled at the time they became homeless, under federal law.

A.H. and E.S. (minors, by their parent, Madelin Hernandez) of Lehigh County filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 20 versus Salisbury Township School District and Randy Ziegenfuss (in his individual capacity), both of Salisbury Township.

“In the fall of 2019 and winter of 2020, plaintiffs lived doubled-up with their aunt within the bounds of defendant District. In or about November 2019, defendant District received information that A.H. and E.S. were living with their mother at a location outside of the District. Defendant District, during November and December 2019 and at the direction of defendant Ziegenfuss, conducted a residency investigation of plaintiffs,” the suit states.

“On information and belief, that residency investigation established that A.H. and E.S. lacked a stable home and were living the majority of the time doubled-up with their aunt within the bounds of the District. Despite the residency investigation’s conclusion, in January 2020, defendants declared that A.H. and E.S. were no longer residents of the District and removed A.H. and E.S. from their schools of origin. Plaintiffs demanded immediate re-enrollment in the District. Defendants refused.”

In February 2020, plaintiffs, through counsel, demanded plaintiffs’ immediate re-enrollment in the District pursuant to the McKinney-Vento Act. After further delaying their re-enrollment for a period of days and demanding proof of residency documentation – all in contravention of the McKinney-Vento Act – the District re-enrolled A.H. and E.S. in its schools.

According to the suit, both plaintiffs have experienced feelings of alienation, been ostracized by peers, and lost their enthusiasm for their education. Plaintiff A.H. in particular has experienced lasting harms, including depression, anxiety, withdrawal from peers and family, disrupted sleep, disrupted appetite, and feelings of panic. The District’s own psychologist has determined that this exclusion from school appears to have caused A.H. emotional harm

The suit adds plaintiffs A.H. and E.S. have, in short, experienced exactly the kind of disruption that the McKinney-Vento Act was written to avoid.

“Defendants removed plaintiffs from school despite being aware that they were living doubled-up, and therefore homeless. Defendants then failed to ensure plaintiffs’ immediate re-enrollment. They also failed to explain the dispute resolution process to plaintiffs or help them use it. And defendants did all of these things willfully and deliberately in disregard of the McKinney-Vento Act and its well-established definition of homelessness,” per the suit.

“As a result of defendants’ actions and omissions, A.H. and E.S. were denied the protections and entitlements of the McKinney-Vento Act, including immediate enrollment pursuant to the Act’s pendency requirement, and enrollment in their school of origin for the duration of his homelessness.”

For counts of violating the McKinney-Vento Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages in the amount of $8,625 for plaintiff A.H.’s loss of education during the 23 days that she was denied a full and free education under Pennsylvania law; compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial for the emotional harms suffered by plaintiff A.H. as a result of her exclusion from school; an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; an award of attorney’s fees and costs and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael D. Raffaele of Raffaele & Associates, in Bryn Mawr.

The defendants are represented by John E. Freund III and Kristine Roddick of King Spry Herman Freund & Faul, in Bethlehem.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:21-cv-02082

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News