Happy Fat Tuesday! For our pre-Lenten offering, let us consider how a school district in Washington prevailed in a lawsuit over disability discrimination.
The middle school principal assigned the student to Saturday school as a punishment after the student urinated on the floor, walls and sink of the school. We are wondering how the Student Code of Conduct addressed this behavior. “Wrongful urination” maybe? But you must also be asking: how does something like this end up in federal court? Can’t you just imagine the federal judge, sipping the morning’s first coffee, asking the bailiff: “what do we have on the docket today?” The bailiff responds: “A 7th grader peed on the floor at school, Your Honor.” Hizzoner would be asking himself: “when did I become the assistant principal?”
Of course, there was more to this lawsuit than this one incident. The parents alleged that the school had refused to implement the boy’s 504 plan in a variety of ways, or had done so inconsistently. There were allegations that teachers disparaged the student, and that the school ignored evidence of bullying. So the lawsuit was over a lot of things.
With regard to this particular incident, the parents alleged that other kids were involved in the incident, but only their boy was punished. They asserted that another student turned off the lights in the classroom. This caused our plaintiff “anxiety and loss of bladder control.” Sure enough, the student was on a 504 plan, and one of his issues was “anxiety.”
The court dismissed the lawsuit, largely due to the failure of the parents to present any evidence of intentional wrongdoing by the school. Claims seeking damages under Section 504 require evidence of intentional discrimination.
On this particular claim, the court relied on the good investigation conducted by the school. That investigation concluded that another student did, in fact, flick off the lights “for a few seconds.” But it also concluded that the wrongful urination began before that, and continued after that. The court concluded: “The material facts show that [the school district] disciplined [the student] because [the school district] found, after an investigation, that [the student] was responsible for the incident.” Emphasis added.
The case is Held v. Northshore School District, 64 IDELR 162. It was decided by the federal court for the Western District of Washington on November 17, 2014.
DAWG BONE: A GOOD INVESTIGATION SERVES YOU WELL WHEN YOU END UP IN THE COURTHOUSE.