PHILADELPHIA – The Haverford Area School District answers that a failure to exhaust administrative remedies and abide by the statute of limitations should bar litigation from a former student who was attacked by a classmate in his special academic program.
Harrison Sorman and Constance Sorman of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 17 versus Haverford Area School District. All parties are of Havertown.
Plaintiff Harrison Sorman was a student of the district starting in 2016. He suffers from several medical conditions and said he has struggled academically due to his conditions.
The defendant found Sorman to be eligible for a Section 504 Service Agreement in 2018, which would provide the accommodations he needed to learn. According to the suit, another student in the special program began threatening Sorman online.
The District was allegedly informed of the threat that the student posed on Sorman. The student then attacked Sorman while they were alone in a classroom together, causing a concussion and a maxillary fracture, the suit said.
The District is accused of failing to seek treatment for Sorman’s injuries and failing to contact his mother to inform her of the attack.
The District filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice on May 28, for failure to properly and sufficiently state its claims.
“Plaintiffs Section 504 and ADA claims fail for several reasons. First, plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts which establish that Harrison was denied the benefits of the District’s program or was otherwise subject to discrimination because of his disability status by the District. The complaint fails to plead any facts showing that he was assaulted because he was disabled or that the District treated him in any manner differently from other students due to his disability status,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Plaintiffs fail to allege Student 1’s disability status or whether the Twilight program was solely for students with disabilities. Nowhere do plaintiffs allege any facts concerning the ‘reasonable accommodation’ which the District allegedly refused to provide or how that had anything to do with Harrison being assaulted. Plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts that could support the conclusion that but for Harrison’s disability, the March 19, 2019 incident would not have occurred. To the contrary, based solely on the allegations of the complaint, Harrison’s disability status had nothing to do with his assault.”
The motion also asserts that the complaint includes no facts to establish that the District failed to act in the face of the threats, and that the remaining claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
“Not only did plaintiffs fail to plead any facts to support a claim for negligence or recklessness against the District, plaintiffs are precluded from bringing these claims against the District pursuant to the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act,” the motion said.
UPDATE
After U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Paul S. Diamond dismissed the plaintiffs’ counts for negligence, state-created danger and loss of consortium with prejudice on July 2, the District filed an answer to the complaint with affirmative defenses two weeks later, on July 16.
“Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part due to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, his own actions, the doctrines of waiver and/or estoppel and by the applicable statute of limitations,” the answer’s defenses stated.
“Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part due to the doctrine of laches and by the fact that the District responded in a manner that was not clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.”
For counts of violating Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, violating 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, negligence and recklessness and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking both monetary and punitive damages under Pennsylvania law.
The plaintiff are represented by Jennifer P. Grobe and John W. Goldsborough of McAndrews Law Offices in Berwyn and Bryn Mawr, plus Michael A. Cancelliere Jr. of Nass Cancelliere Brenner, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Michael D. Kristofco of Wisler Pearlstine, in Blue Bell.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-01305
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com