Pitta v. Medeiros

90 F.4th 11

Scott D. PITTA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Dina MEDEIROS, individually andin her official capacity as Administrator of Special Education forthe Bridgewater Raynham Regional School District;Bridgewater Raynham Regional School District, Defendants, Appellees.

No. 23-1513

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

January 4, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. F. Dennis Saylor, IV, U.S. District Judge]

Scott D. Pitta, pro se, for appellant.

Peter L. Mello, with whom Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, was on brief, for appellees.

Before Gelpí, Selya, and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

LYNCH, Circuit Judge.

Scott D. Pitta, the attorney father of a public school student, appeals from the decision of the Massachusetts U.S. District Court granting the motion to dismiss his First Amendment claim against Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District ("the District") and Dina Medeiros, the District's Administrator for Special Education. Pitta v. Medeiros, No. 22-11641, 2023 WL 3572391 (D. Mass. May 19, 2023).

After the District denied his request to video record a private meeting with school district employees to discuss the Individualized Educational Program ("IEP") of his child, Pitta brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he had a constitutional First Amendment right, which the appellees had denied, to video record what was said by each individual at his child's IEP Meeting. The district court held that Pitta, on the facts alleged, did not possess such a First Amendment right, id. at *8, and that is the only issue on appeal. To be clear, Pitta does not allege that he had a right to record an IEP Team Meeting under any federal or state statute or regulation. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Pitta's First Amendment claim.

I.

We first detail the allegations in Pitta's complaint and events in his further filings, on which he relies. Pitta is a resident of Bridgewater, Massachusetts. His child attends public school in the District and, at the time of the events pled, received IEP services. Appellees are the District, a Massachusetts school district organized under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 71, § 14B, and Medeiros in her official capacity as the District's Administrator of Special Education. Pitta originally sued Medeiros in her individual capacity as well, but this claim was dropped on appeal.

On February 15, 2022, and March 8, 2022, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Pitta and pertinent District employees engaged in two meetings ("IEP Team Meetings") virtually to "discuss and develop a new IEP for [Pitta's] child." During these meetings, although the appellees had previously "argu[ed] to remove [Pitta's] child from IEP based special education services," "several school district employees" admitted "that the [District and Medeiros] had no data upon which to base their opinion" that his child should be removed from these services, and "that teachers who performed evaluations on the child that resulted in findings contrary to the [appellees'] position were later asked by the [appellees] to 'double check' their evaluation, but teachers whose evaluation results supported the [appellees'] position were not asked to do the same." The complaint alleges that "[d]espite lengthy discussions" of these statements, these statements "were not included in the [appellees'] official meeting minutes that were emailed to [him] on March 10[ ], 2022." When Pitta alerted appellees to these "omissions and inaccuracies," he "objected to the [appellees'] minutes as an official record of the meetings and requested that the minutes be amended to include the omitted portions," but appellees "refused to amend the meeting minutes."

Months later, on September 20, 2022, Pitta attended another IEP Team Meeting, conducted virtually through "Google Meet," to discuss his child's IEP. Pitta requested that the appellees video record the meeting using the Google Meet record function.¹ He did so, he alleges, because of appellees' previous "failure to produce accurate minutes of prior meetings and refusal to correct those errors despite obligations to maintain accurate records under 603 CMR 23.03." Appellees refused his request to make such a video recording, stating that such a recording would be "invasive" and was not permitted by District policy. Appellees did offer to audio record the meeting instead. Pitta then told Medeiros, the IEP Team Meeting chair, that since the District's policy prohibited them from video recording the meeting, he would make his own recording. Once the meeting began, the appellees announced that they were audio recording the meeting, and Pitta stated that he was video recording it. At that point, Medeiros stated that if Pitta did not stop his video recording, she would end the meeting. When Pitta refused to stop the video recording, Medeiros terminated this meeting. Pitta filed this suit on September 28, 2022, within days of the failed meeting, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

On October 3, 2022, after Pitta had filed this suit, Medeiros emailed Pitta that the District had "figured out a way to accommodate [his] request to know who is speaking while the meeting is being audio recorded" and was attempting to find a mutually agreeable time "for the educational Team to reconvene from the attempted [IEP] Team [M]eeting scheduled on 9/20/22."² She proposed that "[t]eam members will all be audio recorded and participate with the camera off. When speaking, their identity box will be indic[a]ted as the person speaking by lighting around/within the box." She wrote that this would allow Pitta to "be able to tell who is speaking" while "looking at the screen." Pitta agreed to a virtual IEP Team Meeting under these conditions to take place on October 21, 2022.³

After filing this suit, Pitta sent a public records request on July 10, 2023, seeking from the District "[a]ll special education policies, procedures, etc[.] regarding the IEP process in effect from January 1, 2022[,] to the date of th[at] request"; "[a]ll emails to or from Paul Tsovolos or Dina Medeiros regarding the same information"; and "[a]ll changes or proposed changes to policies, procedures, etc[.] requested." On July 24, 2023, the District provided Pitta with a copy of the Bridgewater-Raynham Regional School District Special Education Policy and Procedure Manual ("Manual").⁴

The Manual explains in detail the District's requirements and policies regarding IEPs, the composition of IEP Teams, and the conduct of IEP Team Meetings. It lists the specific individuals who comprise an IEP Team as: "the student's parent(s); at least one regular education teacher familiar with the student; at least one special education teacher familiar with the student; a representative of the district who has the authority to commit resources⁵; an individual who can interpret evaluation results; other individual(s) who have knowledge or expertise regarding the student; [and] if appropriate, the child."

The Manual states that "[t]he [IEP] Team is charged with managing three important activities: Eligibility Determination/ Initial and Reevaluation[;] Development of the IEP[; and] Placement Decision." (Emphasis omitted.) "After finding a student eligible for special education services, the Team develops the IEP." "The IEP must be tailored to the individual student['s] needs as determined through the evaluation process." It explains that "[d]uring an IEP Meeting, Team members share information and discuss the needs of the student in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the student." IEP development is a "student driven, individualized process," and "[a] well-managed Team meeting" solicits and considers highly personalized information about the student for whom the IEP is being developed, including "parent/student input," "the student's future dreams and goals," "how the student's disability affects the student's learning," and "how the student performs today," as well as "the areas that are affected by the disability" and the "supports and services the student needs for success." Team members must also review "the student's strengths, interests, personal attributes, and personal accomplishments as well as key evaluation results," among other behaviors and personal characteristics of the student.

The Manual states that "[Massachusetts] regulations and [the District] require[ ] attendance at the Team Meeting of the following staff members: (1) Regular Education Teacher[;] (2) Special Education Teacher[;] (3) A representative of the district who is able to commit the resources of the district[; and] (4) An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of [the] evaluation results, who may be a member described above." In addition, "[t]he Administrator or Coordinator of Special Education is available to attend any meeting where the Team feels it will be discussing resources beyond those which are readily available in their school building." The Manual permits "[a]lternatives to 'physical meetings' " for IEP Team Meetings, "including video conferencing, telephone conferencing, or virtual meetings."

The Manual does not address the topic of video recording these meetings. It does specify, however, how IEP Team Meetings should be documented. The Manual describes the use of an "N1 letter" as "a tool used to formally document the proposed action and justification for that action that a school district will take following a Team meeting." "The N1 letter is the district account and perspective on the proceedings and should outline all perceived viewpoints and responses resulting from the Team discussion," including "a clear student-centered recommendation that allows for the student to receive a Free and Appropriate Public Education," "documentation of the consideration of any rejected factors by the Team," "all district based information (staff input, observation, evaluation)" and "all information obtained...