• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Bernadette HarrisMay 25, 2009EDA6232
Brief #1Title/Caption:
Whitehead v. School Board of Hillsborough County, 918 F. Supp. 1515,24 IDELR 21, (M.D. FL 1996)
Facts:
Keith and Nicole Whitehead, parents of Andrew Whitehead, sued theHillsborough, FL school district for failure to provide a free appropriate education for their child with special needs. Their child was in need of speech and language therapy,and the district refused to provide him services or design an I.E.P. for him. The parents began at the district level, with a local hearing without a jury and were ordered to providean I.E.P. which included language therapy.
Procedural History:
In prior hearing, the district had been ordered to provide the childwith an I.E.P. which included speech and language therapy. The district refused tocomply, arguing that they had an “unwritten practice” of not writing I.E.P.’s. Instead,without notifying the parents, they tested the student and decided he didn’t need services,and refused to provide any. The child’s language and speech continued to regress. Thefollowing year, the parents requested a due process hearing, as entitled by I.D.E.A. The judge ordered in favor of the parents, and ordered the district to provide a year of speechand language therapy and an additional year of compensatory services, and thenreevaluate the child’s I.E.P. They awarded the parents attorney’s fees and costs, as well.Five months later, the district filed to have the case reheard and the monetary awardreversed, during which time they still refused to enforce or implement the child’s I.E.P.!The order was instead upheld, and the district still refused to comply. This decision onthe part of the school district resulted in the court entering an injunction that prohibits theschool board from failing to specify special education needs or to create I.E.P.’s. Thedistrict still failed to provide services, so the parents appealed to the Florida Dept of Education, who refused to intervene.
Issues:
Was the Hillsborough County School District negligent in providing anappropriate free education for this student, and for not implementing and following anI.E.P. for the child’s special needs, according to the provisions of IDEA?
Holdings:
The district willingly neglected the student’s special education needs, andtheir obligation under I.D.E.A. to provide for them. Even after being ordered in a preliminary local hearing to provide services, they deliberately failed to do so. Thedistrict’s refusal to comply with the court’s decision contributed to the child’s languageand speech regression. The repeated negligence on the part of the district caused aninjunction to be imposed on the school district in a later court hearing. Despite thisinjunction, the district continued to violate IDEA mandates by failing to implement theIEP and allowing the student’s education to suffer.
Rationale:
At the hearing, the officer found the district had committed 17 violations of I.D.E.A., and had acted in bad faith. The district deliberately retaliated against the
 
 parents by testing the child without consent and by not providing the parents with proper complaint procedure information. They also chose to ignore the court order to implementthe child’s I.E.P., as well as the injunction that stated they could not specify specialeducation needs, nor elect to not provide I.E.P.’s. Under IDEA, districts, schools andindividual teachers are mandated to comply with all stipulations of students’ IEP’s,without exception. The refusal to implement or comply with an IEP is considered willfulmisconduct and bad faith on the part of the district.
Disposition:
The courts awarded the parents $600,000 in damages! [ The parents are stillseeking further compensation through litigation.] The case is still active, as the parentscontinue to exhaust all state level remedies and have their case heard by the Departmentof Education. They attempted to appeal to the Dept. of Education for further punitivedamages, but the federal courts found the parents had not yet exhausted all attempts atstate remedies. If eventually able to appeal to the federal courts, the plaintiffs could alsocite the district’s violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which protects students withdisabilities’ rights to a free and appropriate public education.
Concurrence: None
1. Why did you choose this case? How does it specifically relate to your individual project topic?I chose this case because it involves litigation with regard to a district’s failure toimplement (or follow) a student’s I.E.P. This is the basis of my individual project, as Iam seeking to explore whether we, as a state, are currently efficiently servicing our special needs students, and adhering to their I.E.P.’s in our public schools. I am alsoexploring whether our current policy of inclusion is an adequate and effective means of meeting the needs of these students. This case relates specifically, as it involves the parents’ struggle to get the school district to provide the services their child needed, andthe court’s ruling in their favor. It is another example of the courts’ ruling againsteducational entities who refuse to comply with modifications and accommodations notedin student IEP’s.2. Do you agree or disagree with the decision?I completely agree with the court’s decision in this case. The Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (I.D.E.A) states that schools, teachers and districts are bound by law to comply with all terms stated in a student’s IEP. Neither the teacher, school or district has the authority to implement a “non-IEP” policy. The school had been orderedto supply special services to the child, and they refused. The district deliberatelyretaliated against the decision by retesting the child without the parents’ consent, makingits own determination to terminate services, and then terminated them without notifyingthe parents. The district also claimed to have an “unwritten” policy of not writingI.E.P.’s, which violates another section of I.D.E.A.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...