- G. v Somerset Hills School District 559 F. Supp. 2d 484 (D. N.J. 2008)
Parties
Plaintiff(s): D. G.
Defendant: Somerset Hills School District
Facts
D.G. was a student in the Somerset Hills School district from the first grade to the twelve grade. The Plaintiff asserts that some actions and inactions of the District led to the violation of rights and privileges under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The action lawsuit intends to seek damages for the Plaintiff’s losses, and the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The failure of the District to modify the attendance policy constitutes a case of discrimination based on disability.
Issue
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, IDEA, and the New Jersey Statutes prohibits disability-based discrimination in the education sector. D.G. portrayed signs of depression and other critical mental conditions, but the school failed to review the case and recommend special education. The Plaintiff’s mother was also denied due process under the Fourteenth amendment to review the student’s case. The school’s inaction adversely affected the Plaintiff’s education progress, promoting the action lawsuit against the individual who perpetrated the discrimination.
Rule
The defendant’s motion to dismiss concerning the Plaintiff’s claim on the IDEA and Fourteenth amendment about moving defendants succeeded. The court granted motion regarding the Rehabilitation Act claim as it relates to the individual moving defendant. However, the court denied the option concerning D.G.’s insistence on the Rehabilitation Act concerning allegations against the District and the New Jersey statute about assertions against the individual moving defendant.
Plaintiff’s argument
The Plaintiff argued that the District violated his rights under IDEA. D.G. asserted that the District’s failure to conduct a reasonable evaluation and design an appropriate educational program to accommodate special services under the Individualized Education Program. As a result, the denial of those services exacerbated D.G.’s depression, significantly suppressed his self-esteem, impeded effective education and training acquisition, and contributed to stigmatization for not graduating with fellow students. The plaintiffs also argue that D.G.’s parents also experienced emotional and mental distress, financial losses, deprivation of happiness and joy, and denial of a right to make critical decisions about their son’s development. For those reasons, the Plaintiff presents the action lawsuit seeking compensatory and consequential damages from the District and covering relevant costs such as the attorney fee and other reliefs as the court may deem necessary. Plaintiff rejects the motion to dismiss the case.
Defendant’s argument
The defendant’s requested the court to dismiss the lawsuit because the statute of limitations on IDEA claims ceases after two years. This assertion originates from the rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Besides, the defendant argued the Plaintiff failed to exercise the due process stipulated in IDEA. Thus, D.G. lacked the exhaust the available options before resolving the lawsuit action. The Individual moving defendants (Charwin, Connor, Dundas, Grund, and Miller) asserted that they did not have personal liability because they were not the recipient of financial aid and assistance. They do not have personal responsibilities over resources and could not be held accountable for resource allocation outcomes. The defendants argued that the court would dismiss the claim because they lacked substance and violated the federal court’s procedural codes.
Court decision
The court held that the statute of limitations does not apply because the District withheld information required to provide the Plaintiff’s parents. Plaintiff’s IDEA claim is not affected under the continuing violation doctrine, where misconduct stems from related events, omission, and inactions. The court also found that the District violate the free appropriate education (FPE) granted under IDEA, requiring educational institutions and agencies that receive federal assistance to identify and determine approximate instruction methods for a student with special needs. The Disabilities Act also provides that school districts have the responsibility to identify special needs and inform parents about their unique requirements. The school denied the plaintiff benefits and subjected his to discrimination, which had psychological and developmental consequences. The plaintiff lawsuit pertains to damages as related to IDEA.
However, the court also asserted that the individuals moving the defendant were not recipients of federal assistance. Therefore, they do not have any personal responsibility regarding any losses or liability sustained. The rule forms the basis that the court used to allow the motion related to Plaintiff regarding individual defendants’ claims.
Implication
The decision made in the case highlights the role of school psychologists in the implementation of IDEA rules in a school. School psychologist plays a critical role in determining wellbeing and assessment of the psychological wellbeing. Mental conditions and illnesses fall within the domain of special needs in education. School psychologist helps to identify the underlying psychological factors and how they affect the outcomes of the student. The case places the District at the center of identifying special needs and communicating the concerns to parents. The role of school psychologist assumes a strategic perspective because their expert opinion about a student’s condition may have an adverse effect in the future. The ruling transforms the role of school psychologists by making decisions influencing the effectiveness of instruction methods.
