York v. N. Colonie Bd. of Educ.

DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. NORTH COLONIE BOARD OF EDUCATION;NORTH COLONIE CENTRAL SCHOOLS;and MR. D. JOSEPH CORR, in his official capacity as the Superintendentof North Colonie Central Schools, Defendants.

1:14-CV-0744 (DNH/DJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 21, 2016

APPEARANCES:

DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK

Attorneys for Plaintiff

725 Broadway, Suite 450

Albany, NY 12207

YOUNG/SOMMER LLC

Attorneys for Defendants

Executive Woods

Five Palisades Drive

Albany, NY 12205

RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN

United States Attorney's Office

445 Broadway

Albany, NY 12207

OF COUNSEL:

JULIE MICHAELS KEEGAN, ESQ.

JENNIFER J. MONTHIE, ESQ.

CLIFF ZUCKER, ESQ.

JOSEPH F. CASTIGLIONE, ESQ.

JESSICA R. VIGARS, ESQ.

THOMAS SPINA, ESQ.

SARAH HINGER, ESQ.

DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM, DECISION and ORDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 2

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................... 2

III. DISCUSSION ........................................................ 4

A. Summary Judgment Standard ...................................... 4

B. The Standards for Declaratory Relief and for a Permanent Injunction ........ 5

C. Relevant Statutes ................................................ 6

D. Entitlement to Summary Judgment ................................... 8

1. Blue Creek is a "facility" or "service provider" under the P&A Statutes . . . 9

2. The complaints received do allege "abuse" or "neglect" as defined by the P&A Statutes .......................................... 13

3. The ASC classroom students constitute disabled individuals under the P&A Statutes ................................................... 15

4. Monitoring Authority pursuant to the P&A Statutes .................. 18

5. Degree of Further Compliance ................................. 19

IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................20

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently under consideration are two motions for summary judgment, the first by plaintiff Disability Rights New York ("Disability Rights"), a New York not-for-profit organization and the second by defendants North Colonie Board of Education, North Colonie Central Schools and Mr. D. Joseph Corr, Superintendent (collectively, the "District"). Both parties have filed papers in response to the opposing party's motion. The United States has also filed a Statement of Interest in this case in support of plaintiff Disability Rights. Oral arguments were heard on October 9, 2015.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are gleaned from the parties' submissions, including the statements submitted pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 7.1.

Disability Rights is the New York Protection and Advocacy system designated by theGovernor of the State of New York to provide protection and advocacy services to individuals with mental illness and disabilities pursuant to New York Executive Law § 558. Plaintiff alleges that between April 2014 and June 2014, it received six separate complaints concerning conduct at Blue Creek Elementary School ("Blue Creek"), a school within the defendants' district. Specifically, Disability Rights received information that within Blue Creek's "Academic Skills Class" for fourth, fifth and sixth graders (the "ASC classroom"), there may have been instances of abuse and/or neglect, including, among other things, inappropriate use of physical restraints and seclusion of students. These complaints came from five parents or guardians of students educated in the ASC classroom and one former employee of Blue Creek who worked in the ASC classroom.

During the 2013-2014 school year, the ASC classroom contained a total of 6 or 7 students over the course of the year. Each student was placed in the ASC classroom by the District pursuant to the student's individualized education program ("IEP") and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. ("IDEA"). The students placed in the ASC classroom during the 2013-2014 school year had the following disability classifications pursuant to the IDEA: autism, emotional disturbance, learning disability, intellectual disability and other health impairment. The students placed in the ASC classroom during the 2013-2014 school year were provided assistive technology, counseling, music therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy and speech and language therapy.

Disability Rights deemed the received complaints credible and as a result, on June 12, 2014, sent defendant Superintendent Corr a letter requesting access to the ASC classroom on June 17, 2014 pursuant to its status as a Protection & Advocacy system (a "P&A system") under (I) the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, 42 U.S.C. §10801-10827 (the "PAIMI Act"), (ii) the Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15041 et seq. (the "DD Act") and (iii) the Protection and Advocacy for Individual Rights Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794e, et seq. (the "PAIR Act", and together with the PAIMI Act and DD Act, the "P&A Statutes"). By letter dated June 16, 2014, the District denied Disability Rights physical access to the Blue Creek school. Based on this denial, Disability Rights filed suit on June 19, 2014 seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. On June 20, 2014, this Court granted Disability Right's motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to provide plaintiff with immediate access to the Blue Creek school. Disability Rights was able to access the school for approximately 6.5 hours of June 24 and June 25, 2014. Plaintiff further had access to Blue Creek for approximately one hour on June 26, 2014 when students were not present. In June 2014, Disability Rights also requested that the District produce the records of four students who participated in the ASC classroom during the 2013-2014 school year for the period from January 1, 2012 onward. As a result, Disability Rights provided the District with a records release signed by the parent or guardian of each student. The District claims to have produced all responsive educational records requested by Disability Rights as if the plaintiff were the authorized agent of each child, retaining only internal email correspondence between District employees.

III. DISCUSSION

(A) Summary Judgment Standard.

Summary judgment is appropriate where, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law". FED. R. CIV. PRO. 56(c); Richardson v. Selky, 5 F.3d 616, 621 (2d Cir. 1993). The party moving for summary judgmenthas the burden to establish "'that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the undisputed facts establish her right to judgment as a matter of law.'" Bowen v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 363 F. Supp. 2d 370, 373 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting Rodriquez v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (2d Cir. 1995)).

"[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). A party opposing summary judgment "'may not rest upon mere allegation or denials of [their] pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. (quoting First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Svcs.Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288 (1968)). Those specific facts must be supported by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record." FED. R. CIV. PRO. 56(c)(1)(A). "[I]f the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.

(B) The Standards for Declaratory Relief and for a Permanent Injunction.

Disability Rights seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, whereby "any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 28 U.S.C. § 2201. "[A] court must entertain a declaratory judgment action: (1) when the judgment will serve a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue, or (2) when it will terminate and afford relief from the uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the proceeding." Continental Cas. Co. v. Coastal Sav. Bank, 977 F.2d 734 (2d Cir.1992) (citing Broadview Chem. Corp. v. Loctite Corp., 417 F.2d 998, 1001 (2d Cir.1969)).

Disability Rights also seeks a permanent injunction. "Generally, to obtain a permanent injunction a party must show the absence of an adequate remedy at law and irreparable harm if the relief is not granted." New York State Nat. Organization for Women v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339, 1362 (2d Cir.1989). In addition, the plaintiff must demonstrate actual success on the merits rather than a likelihood of success, as is required when a preliminary injunction is requested. Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12 (1987).

(C) Relevant Statutes.

The DD Act provides for federal funding of state systems "to protect the legal and human rights of individuals with developmental disabilities....." 42 U.S.C. §§ 15041; 15042. In order to qualify for such funds, a state must have in place a system that is authorized to provide effective advocacy for and protection of the rights of developmentally disabled persons. 42 U.S.C. § 15043(a)(2)(A). Further, such systems must "have access at reasonable times to any individual with a developmental disability in a location in which services, supports, and other assistance are provided to such an individual" as well as access to records of developmentally disabled individuals when certain factors arise. See 42 U.S.C. § 15043(a)(2)(H)—(I). The P&A system...