Thurman G. v. Sweetwater Independent School District

THURMAN G. and JENNIFER G., as parents, guardians, and next friends of L.G., a minor individual with a disability, Plaintiffs, v. SWEETWATER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

No. 1:19-CV-102-H

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Abilene Division

July 26, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SWEETWATER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING THE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case stems from a disagreement between the parents of L.G., a student with learning disabilities, and Sweetwater Independent School District regarding the district's placement of L.G. in non-special-education classes. L.G.'s parents filed an action with the Texas Education Agency (TEA) alleging that Sweetwater denied L.G. a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and requesting various forms of relief. Dkt. No. 9-2 at 48. After a Special Education Hearing Officer (SEHO) denied their requests for relief, the parents filed this civil action asking the Court to find that the SEHO erred and grant relief in their favor. Dkt. No. 1. Before the Court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 23, 32. The plaintiffs request judgment in their favor because the SEHO erred when she excluded the report and testimony of their expert, found that Sweetwater did not deny L.G. a FAPE, and declined to grant relief. Dkt. Nos. 32, 33. In contrast Sweetwater requests judgment in its favor because, in its view, the SEHO did not err. Dkt. Nos. 23, 24. As explained below, the Court grants Sweetwater's motion and denies the plaintiffs'motion.^[1]

Upon review of the applicable law and the evidence, the Court finds that the SEHO did not commit error in any of the ways alleged by the plaintiffs. Considering that the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply to due-process hearings in front of the TEA and that the plaintiffs violated the rules by failing to disclose the identity of their expert or the expert's report until six days before trial, the Court finds that the SEHO did not abuse her discretion and err by excluding the expert testimony and report. Additionally, because the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Sweetwater procedurally or substantively denied L.G. a FAPE, the Court finds that the SEHO did not err when she found that Sweetwater did not deny L.G. a FAPE. As a result of these findings, the Court further finds that the SEHO did not err when she denied the plaintiffs' requests for relief. Accordingly, the Court grants Sweetwater's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No 23, and denies the plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 32.

1. Factual and Procedural Background

A. The IDEA

Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)^[2] “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). The IDEA requires school districts in states receiving designated federal funds to provide “[a] free appropriate public education . . . to all children with disabilities residing in the State.” § 1412(a)(1)(A). Additionally, the state and the school districts must “establish and maintain procedures . . . to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of a [FAPE].” § 1415(a). “To ensure that a child receives a FAPE, parents and school districts collaborate to develop an Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) that is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” R.H. v. Plano Indep. Sch Dist., 607 F.3d 1003, 1008 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted).

In Texas, an Admissions, Review, and Dismissal Committee (ARDC) develops the IEP. Id. The ARDC is composed of a group of individuals, including: (1) the disabled child's parents; (2) at least one of the disabled child's regular-education teachers; (3) at least one of the disabled child's special-education teachers; (4) a representative of the school district; (5) an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results; (6) at the discretion of the parents or the district, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child; and (7) if appropriate, the child. § 1414(d)(1)(B).

Under the IDEA, any party has an opportunity to present a complaint “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the [disabled] child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” § 1415(b)(6)(A).

Whenever a complaint has been received[, ] . . . the parents or the local educational agency involved in such complaint shall have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing, which shall be conducted by the State educational agency or by the local educational agency, as determined by State law or by the State educational agency.

§ 1415(f)(1)(A). In Texas, “[t]he Texas Education Agency (TEA) . . . maintain[s] a pool of impartial hearing officers to conduct due process hearings.” Tex. Admin. Code § 89.1170(a).

“Any party aggrieved by the findings [made at a due-process hearing, ] . . . shall have the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint presented . . . .” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). Such an action “may be brought . . . in a district court of the United States, without regard to the amount in controversy.” Id.

B. Factual Background

During the 2013-14 school year, L.G. began attending J.P. Cowen Elementary as a pre-kindergarten student. Dkt. No. 9-4 at 109. During that year, L.G. exhibited signs of a speech impairment. See Id. at 16. As a result, L.G. received a Full Individual Evaluation (FIE), which found that she had a “possible speech/language delay” and was eligible for special education. Id. at 14, 21. Accordingly, in August of 2014, L.G. started receiving speech services from Sweetwater Independent School District. Dkt. No. 31-5 at 23.

In August 2015, L.G. began attending kindergarten at Southeast Elementary. Dkt. No. 9-4 at 186. During that year, L.G. struggled in reading and writing. Id. at 165; Dkt. No. 31-5 at 212. As a result, L.G.'s parents requested that L.G.'s ARDC meet to discuss her progress in the classroom. Dkt. No. 9-4 at 227. The ARDC convened on May 9, 2016. Id. In that meeting, school personnel recommended that L.G. repeat kindergarten, and the committee referred L.G. for an FIE. Id.

In accordance with the school officials' recommendation, L.G. repeated kindergarten during the 2016-17 school year. Id. at 245. And an FIE was completed on October 17, 2016. Id. at 26-42. The FIE considered various sources of data including: an Adaptive Behavior Assessment that was completed by both L.G.'s parents and her teacher, a Development Profile-3 assessment completed by both the parents and a teacher, a Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, assessments and observations by a speech-language pathologist, a vision and hearing screening, teacher information, classroom-observation data, and a home language survey. Id. at 26. Sweetwater did not conduct any occupational therapy (OT) evaluations or functional behavioral assessments (FBA) for the FIE. Dkt. No. 9-4 at 26.

The FIE indicated that L.G. had deficits in listening comprehension, early reading skills, math problem solving, alphabet writing fluency, numerical operations, oral expression, and spelling. Dkt. No. 31-4 at 7. Additionally, the FIE noted that L.G.'s teacher opined that she exhibited average gross-motor coordination but displayed below average fine-motor coordination. Id. at 1. And the FIE recommended that L.G. needed special education as a student with an intellectual disability and a speech/language impairment. Dkt. No. 9-4 at 39.

After completion of the FIE, the ARDC met again, on October 24, 2016, to update L.G.'s IEP. Id. at 245. The ARDC reviewed L.G.'s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP)-a portion of the IEP that describes the student's levels of performance at that time. Id. The PLAAFP included an analysis of L.G.'s levels of achievement in reading, speech, written expression, math, behavior, and functioning. Id. The PLAAFP noted that: (1) L.G. was performing at a pre-kindergarten level in reading and math; (2) her speech difficulties adversely impacted her ability to access information in the general-education setting; (3) she was on level in written expression; (4) L.G. was easily distracted but could be redirected with instruction; and (5) she generally can function in her educational environment but has difficulty with two- and three-step instructions. Id.

Additionally, at the ARDC meeting, school personnel confirmed that L.G. would be promoted to first grade for the 2017-18 school year. Id. at 246. L.G.'s schedule of services was updated to include 315 minutes of general education per day, 80 minutes per day of special education in reading and math, and two approximately 30-minute speech-therapy sessions per week. Id. at 250. And the ARDC created academic goals for L.G. in speech, language arts and reading, and math. Id. at 254-55.

The ARDC convened again in January 2017. Dkt. No. 9-5 at 2. It did not change L.G.'s PLAAFP. See Dkt. No. 9-4 at 245; Dkt. No. 9-5 at 3. But the ARDC updated her goals and included goals for speech, functioning, language arts and reading, and math. Dkt. No. 9-5 at 6-8. The services that Sweetwater provided L.G. remained the same, including speech therapy and special education for reading and math....