Lamar Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. J.T.

577 F.Supp.3d 599

LAMAR CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff,

v.J.T. B/N/F APRIL S., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-02353

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.

Signed December 31, 2021

Jonathan Griffin Brush, Amy C. Tucker, Rogers, Morris & Grover, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.

Holly G. Terrell, Cirkiel & Associates PC, Round Rock, TX, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Charles Eskridge, United States District Judge The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act requires state school districts that receive federal funds to make available to children with qualifying disabilities a free, appropriate public education (known as a FAPE ). See 20 USC § 1412(a)(1)(A). Each FAPE must be tailored to the needs of the individual student according to the design of an independent educational plan (known as an IEP ) or behavioral intervention plan (known as a BIP ). See 20 USC §§ 1414(d) & 1415(k).

This action stems from a complaint originally filed with the Texas Education Agency by April S. as next friend of her son, J.T., asserting that Lamar Consolidated Independent School District denied J.T. his FAPE during the Fall 2018 semester in violation of the IDEA. A TEA special education hearing officer found in favor of J.T.

Lamar CISD initiated this administrative appeal to challenge that ruling. It brought a motion for partial summary judgment to reverse and vacate the hearing officer's decision. Dkt 20. Specifically, Lamar CISD seeks a ruling to reverse the award of relief as contrary to the facts and law, and to instead find that its remedial efforts were in compliance with the IDEA and ensured that J.T. received a FAPE—thus also finding that J.T. isn't a prevailing party entitled to an award of attorney fees.

For reasons stated here, the motion is granted.

1. Background

J.T. attends George Ranch High School, and April S. is his mother. George Ranch is part of Lamar CISD and is located in Fort Bend County, Texas, roughly ten miles southwest of Sugar Land. J.T. started at George Ranch in the Fall of 2018 upon transfer into Lamar CISD. AR 6; see also Dkt 1 at ¶ 4.1.

J.T. has various learning disabilities, including Rubenstein-Taybi syndrome. This causes him to experience limited strength, heightened alertness to stimuli, subaverage general intellectual functioning, deficits in adaptive behavior, impaired articulation, and mood changes (including temper outbursts and anxiety), among other symptoms. Due to his various disabilities, J.T. occasionally becomes very upset and reacts angrily, at times by yelling or throwing his belongings. Dkt 1 at ¶ 4.1. These outbursts are expected from him, and the appropriate instructive response is addressed in his designated BIP. For example, April S. was at times asked to pick J.T. up from school early, and J.T. at times needed to be restrained to prevent him from hurting himself or others. See AR 2242–45 (incidents on 09/04/2018 and 09/10/2018). Further, the Admissions, Review, and Dismissal Committee of Lamar CISD (referred to as the ARD Committee ) met regularly to discuss these incidents and any changes needed to J.T.’s IEP or BIP. For example, see AR 2163–220 (09/21/2020 ARD Committee report); AR 2247–60 (10/26/2018 ARD Committee report).

The transition by J.T. to George Ranch for the Fall 2018 semester presented a number of challenges due to concerns like those noted above. Of import, the TEA hearing officer ultimately determined that J.T.’s claims in this action are limited by a one-year statute of limitations, thus focusing the dispute on those claims arising on or after November 20, 2018. AR 5–6; see also Tex Admin Code § 89.1180(i) (one-year statute of limitations). But at an ARD meeting just prior to that on November 2nd, the ARD Committee reviewed a new function behavioral assessment (known as an FBA ) and proposed new academic goals as requested by April S. See AR 2656 (deliberations), 2657–67 (goals). In addition to the new IEP goals, the ARD Committee also introduced a new BIP along with two new behavioral goals. AR 2673.

Much of this dispute concerns J.T.’s interactions with a former George Ranch teacher named Regina Thurston. She was new to George Ranch at the start of the Fall 2018 semester and resigned at its end. Dkt 1 at ¶ 4.2; AR 39. During that semester, she responded inappropriately to J.T.’s outbursts several times. Such instances after November 20th included:

• On November 29th, in frustration with one of J.T.’s outbursts, Thurston forcefully grabbed him while he was on the ground and threw his shoes across the room;

• On December 14th, while students waited to get on the bus, Thurston told J.T. "if you want to kick me then walk over here and kick me"—but after doing what he was told, Thurston kicked J.T. in the shin;

• On December 18th, after J.T. had become upset in response to a loud video and turned over his desk, she dumped additional items on the floor and yelled at him to "pick it up";

• On December 19th, after J.T. had become physically aggressive, Thurston grabbed him by the arm and shoved him to the ground, with another physical interaction causing them both to fall to the ground; and

• On December 20th, again without any apparent provocation, Thurston pushed J.T. from a ball chair onto the floor.

AR 17–20.

Members of the George Ranch administration began investigating the December 14th incident promptly. But the school didn't inform April S. of that incident at an ARD Committee meeting on December 18th. AR 19. And it wasn't until December 20th that the school requested April S. to view video of the incident. AR 21, 3221–22. At that time, April S. also requested and was allowed to view video from the November 29th incident. She suspected that an incident had occurred that day because J.T. came home from school with scratches on his arm. AR 20.

At the beginning of the Spring 2019 semester, J.T. received a half-day suspension for an outburst. April S. requested a meeting with the ARD Committee, at which she requested that J.T. receive temporary homebound instruction. The ARD Committee agreed, and after several days of homebound instruction, April S. permitted J.T. to return to school. But on January 30th, the administration showed April S. the December 19th video as part of its continuing investigation into Thurston and monitoring of its special education policies. April S. then refused to permit J.T. to attend in-person instruction for the remainder of the 2018–2019 school year. AR 20–21.

George Ranch provided increased homebound services during this time. As explained in the administration decision:

Homebound instruction was increased from 4 hours/week to 10 hours/week. The ARD committee agreed to provide occupational therapy, personal care services, and ABA therapy. It also agreed that adaptive PE would be provided and that compensatory speech therapy services would be made up before the end of the school year.... The district agreed to pay for six months of private counseling sessions for [J.T.] and [April S.]. [April S.] stopped attending following the May 15, 2019 session.

AR 21–22.

The ARD Committee met in August 2019 to review J.T.’s full individual evaluation (known as an FIE ) and to discuss his education for the 2019–2020 academic year. The ARD Committee and April S. agreed to a plan to transition J.T. back to school by providing him a combination of on-campus and homebound instruction. AR 23. Even so, she filed an administrative complaint with the TEA asserting that Lamar CISD denied J.T. a FAPE in violation of the IDEA. Ibid; see also Dkt 1 at ¶ 4.7.

A special education hearing officer of the TEA eventually conducted a hearing and determined (among other things) that J.T. was denied a FAPE for the Fall 2018 semester. He ordered Lamar CISD to provide J.T. one semester of compensatory services and other miscellaneous benefits. The full decision can be found at AR 1–53.

Lamar CISD filed a complaint in July 2020 to appeal this administrative decision. Dkt 1. J.T. answered and asserted counterclaims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 USC § 1983. See Dkts 10 & 12 at ¶¶ 164–206. Counsel confirmed at hearing that J.T. continues to attend George Ranch at present.

Lamar CISD moved for partial summary judgment to reverse and vacate aspects of the decision by the hearing officer as to the conclusion that it didn't comply with the IDEA and to request a finding instead that its remedial efforts ensured that J.T. received a FAPE. Dkt 20. That motion is addressed here. Lamar CISD also moved to dismiss the Section 1983 counterclaim by J.T. Dkt 15. That motion has been stayed pending determination here. Minute Entry of 10/21/2020.

2. Legal standard

J.T. at base complains about the substantive appropriateness of his IEP. For such a challenge, the Fifth Circuit directs district courts to follow the four-factor test set forth in Cypress-Fairbanks ISD v. Michael F. , 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997). These factors are:

• First, whether the program is individualized on the basis of the student's assessment and performance;

• Second, whether the program is administered in the least restrictive environment;

• Third, whether the services are provided in a coordinated and collaborative manner by the key stakeholders; and

• Fourth, whether positive academic and non-academic benefits are demonstrated.

Michael F. , 118 F.3d at 253 ; see also E.R. v. Spring Branch ISD , 909 F.3d 754, 765 (5th Cir. 2018).

Some litigants (including J.T. here) have argued that the pertinent law changed with the recent Supreme Court decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 988, 197 L.Ed.2d 335 (2017) ; see Dkt 23 at 18–19. But the Fifth Circuit has since expressly addressed Endrew F. and determined that the Michael F. factors are consistent with that decision and continue...