slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Seclusion and Restraint: Legal Claims under Federal and State Law PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Seclusion and Restraint: Legal Claims under Federal and State Law

Seclusion and Restraint: Legal Claims under Federal and State Law

135 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Seclusion and Restraint: Legal Claims under Federal and State Law

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Seclusion and Restraint: Legal Claims under Federal and State Law Created for the TASC 2010 Conference by Kristine Sullivan, Disability Rights NC

  2. Claims under the IDEA • Failure to provide FAPE • Violation of LRE requirement • Change of placement

  3. In re: Student with a Disability39 IDELR 200 (Vt. State Educ. Agency 2003) • Student with history of biting, scratching, pinching, throwing furniture. • IEP allowed use of physical restraint as last resort if student was a danger. • LEA justified in including restraint in IEP. No violation of right to FAPE.

  4. Student’s IEP included the use of time-out room. Evidence indicated that use of time-out was effective for student. Parents failed to demonstrate that time-out room was unsafe. No violation of right to FAPE. Boerne Indep. Sch. Dist.25 IDELR 102 (Tex. State Educ. Agency 1996)

  5. Ferndale Public Schools51 IDELR 233 (Mich. State Educ. Agency 2008) • Student allegedly removed his clothes and ran up and down aisle while school bus was in motion. • LEA used harness to restrain student on bus. • Use of harness was reasonable because it was necessary to ensure safety of student and others. No denial of FAPE.

  6. Robert H. v. Nixa R-2 Sch. Dist.26 IDELR 564 (W.D. Mo. 1997) • Student placed in time-out room for misconduct during lunch. • IEP Team, including parents, developed IEP that allowed use of time-out room. • LEA followed procedural requirements of IDEA, including parent participation. No denial of FAPE.

  7. CJN v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs.323 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. Minn. 2003) • Court refused to create rule prohibiting use of restraint because it “may help prevent bad behavior from escalating to a level where a suspension is required.” • As long as student benefits from education, it is up to educators to determine appropriate educational methodology, including use of restraints. • No denial of FAPE.

  8. Waukee Community Sch. Dist. v. Isabel L.51 IDELR 15 (S.D. Iowa 2008) • Student’s non-compliant behavior served escape function. • Offering student a break in response served to reinforce inappropriate behavior. • Student’s aggressive behavior toward peers served attention-seeking function. • Use of hand-over-hand intervention in response served to reinforce inappropriate behavior. • Interventions were not reasonably calculated to manage student’s behavior and therefore denied FAPE.

  9. West Baton Rouge Parish School System53 IDELR 245 (La. State Educ. Agency 2009) • Student with history of pushing, climbing, kicking, running away. Teacher restrained student to prevent him from running out back door and held a hand over student’s mouth to keep him from disturbing other classes. • SEA cited A.D. v. Kirby, 975 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. Tex. 1992), which held that LRE prohibits LEA from using unnecessary physical restraint. • Teacher’s use of restraint to keep student safe was reasonable. Teacher’s use of restraint to keep student quiet was unnecessary and for staff convenience. Therefore restraint was unreasonable and violated right to education in LRE.

  10. Melissa S. v. Sch. Dist.183 Fed. Appx. 184 (3d Cir. Pa. 2006) • Student kicked, screamed, struck other students, spit at teacher, grabbed teacher’s breast, refused to go to class, ran away from school once. • Staff took student to “time-out area” to calm down. • Use of time-out area not a change of placement and did not violate IDEA.

  11. LEA may be permitted to choose methodology LEA did not adhere to procedural safeguards Lessons Learned • Use of s/r was ineffective to end or change behaviors • Use of s/r was not reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit

  12. Claims under Section 504 and the ADA • Disability-based discrimination • Failure to provide FAPE • All cases in this section are complaints filed in the Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education

  13. Portland (ME) Sch. Dist.352 IDELR 492 (1987) • Teacher tied student into a chair. • Student’s IEP did not allow for restraint. • Teacher described restraint as behavior modification. • Use of restraint denied FAPE under Section 504.

  14. Wells-Ogunquit (ME) Community Sch. Dist. # 1817 IDELR 495 (1990) • Teacher restrained student in response to violent outburst. • Student’s IEP allowed physical restraint to control violent behavior. • Restraint was justified and not discriminatory.

  15. Florence County (SC) No. 1 Sch. Dist.352 IDELR 495 (1987) • Student restrained to prevent him from harming self or others. • Student’s IEP provided for “praise and positive reinforcement” and prohibited corporal punishment. • Use of restraint was not discriminatory.

  16. Valley View (OH) Local Sch. Dist.53 IDELR 335 (2009) • Student restrained when in danger of hurting himself or others. • Student’s IEP, which parent signed, allowed use of restraint as last resort. • Use of restraint was consistent with student’s IEP. • LEA responded to parent concerns and made use of restraint less public. • Insufficient evidence to establish LEA subjected student to hostile environment based on disability.

  17. Oakland (CA) Unified Sch. Dist.20 IDELR 1338 (1993) • Teacher taped student’s mouth for excessive talking, took photograph of student and showed to student’s classmates. • Evaluations and assessments demonstrated that behavior was related to student’s disability. • Punishment for disability-related behavior was discrimination in violation of Section 504 and the ADA.

  18. Gateway (CA) Unified Sch. Dist.24 IDELR 80 (1995) • School officials restrained student. • Restraint was used to prevent student from acting on statements that he planned to harm himself. • Student’s BIP allowed for restraint. • No evidence of discrimination.

  19. Ohio County (WV) Pub. Schs.16 IDELR 619 (1989) • Toileting goal was removed from student’s IEP. • Student soiled himself excessively because of diarrhea and demonstrated discomfort while having his diaper changed. Teacher held student on toilet. Student had bruises from restraint. • Teacher acted in response to emergency situation and did not intend to disregard student’s IEP. No denial of FAPE. • No evidence that teacher used excessive force. Use of restraint was not discriminatory.

  20. Aiken (SC) County Sch. Dist.23 IDELR 113 (1995) • Teacher taped student’s mouth for excessive talking. • Inappropriate disciplinary sanctions resulted in denial of FAPE under Section 504. • LEA took appropriate steps to remedy violation by convening meeting, requiring teacher to apologize and reassigning student to another classroom. LEA therefore did not violate Section 504 or the ADA.

  21. Marion County (FL) Sch. Dist.20 IDELR 634 (1993) • Every elementary school in LEA that served students with disabilities who had BIPs had time-out rooms. • In absence of time-out rooms, many students would have required placement in more restrictive settings. • Amount of time students were placed in time-out rooms complied with state and local policies and did not deny appropriate education to students. • No violation of Section 504 or the ADA.

  22. Reason for the s/r Prevent harm Intent to disregard IEP Use of SR consistent with IEP Lessons Learned • Demonstrate failure to call IEP meeting before using s/r • Evidence that s/r used as punishment for disability-related behavior

  23. Claims under state law • Tort claims • State seclusion and restraint laws

  24. Peters v. Rome City Sch. Dist.298 A.D.2d 864 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2002) • Parent consented to student’s IEP, which included use of time-out room for misbehavior. • Parent alleged student was forced to lie flat on floor of room, room lacked ventilation, smelled of “dirty feet and urine,” and padding on floor was ripped and dirty. • Student was confined for excessive periods of time and could not leave room until he sat perfectly still for three minutes. • Parent asserted claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Court upheld jury’s finding in parent’s favor.

  25. Springfield Pub. Schs.51 IDELR 263 (Mass. State Educ. Agency 2008) • Parent believed student would try to leave school building during day. Parent asked LEA to draft student’s BIP to include use of physical restraint • MA law allows use of restraint when student poses threat of imminent, serious physical harm. • MA law also allows use of restraint as permitted in student’s IEP or BIP. Court read law to allow use of restraint as necessary to provide FAPE. • No evidence that student would attempt to leave school, and no evidence that restraint was necessary to provide FAPE.

  26. Baltimore County Pub. Schs.108 LRP 38035 (Md. State Educ. Agency 2008) • Maryland education code prohibits use of restraint unless (1) student’s behavior is likely to result in imminent, serious physical harm and less-restrictive interventions have failed or are inappropriate; or (2) student’s IEP allows use of restraint in specific situations. • Student’s BIP allowed use of restraint to keep her safe when she engaged in unsafe behaviors. • LEA failed to document that its use of restraint was consistent with BIP. LEA also failed to document that appropriate staff received training on state regulations governing behavior interventions. LEA violated state law.

  27. Carroll County Pub. Schs.109 LRP 16444 (Md. State Educ. Agency 2008) • Student with history of aggression was restrained when he endangered himself and others. • LEA complied with state law by applying restraint only in emergency situations or when permitted by student’s IEP. • LEA violated state law by failing to document use of restraint on each occasion; by failing to meet within 10 days of initial use of restraint to develop BIP; and by failing to properly train one staff member who restrained the student.

  28. Beaverton Sch. Dist.109 LRP 399 (Or. State Educ. Agency 2008) • Student’s IEP allowed for use of separate room as “safe place” if student became physically or verbally aggressive. • State law requires staff to file detailed report for each incident of seclusion and provide parent with copy of report. State law also requires the IEP to specify how much seclusion will trigger reassessment of BIP. • LEA failed to complete incident reports and to identify when seclusion would trigger review of BIP.

  29. B.D. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist.53 IDELR 120 (W.D. Wash. 2009) • Student was sent to “quiet room” when he became over-stimulated. • Washington law defines aversive as systematic use of stimuli or other treatment to discourage undesirable behavior. Definition excludes actions to control behavior that poses clear and present danger. • Law permits use of aversive interventions only as last resort. Interventions must be included in student’s IEP. • LEA did not violate law because use of room did not constitute aversive intervention. Student was not forced to go to room and room was not used as discipline.

  30. Cheyenne Mountain Sch. Dist. 1252 IDELR 237 (Colo. State Educ. Agency 2009) • Student’s educational program included use of unlocked “sensory” room. His IEP did not describe use of restraints. • State law required that IEP detail use of restraint if there was possibility they would be used as part of crisis management. • LEA did not restrict student’s movement through use of sensory room, did not restrain student and did not place him in seclusion. Therefore, there was no evidence that restraint had been or would be used and LEA was not obligated to include use of restraint in student’s IEP.

  31. Bellflower Unified Sch. Dist.54 IDELR 66 (Cal. State Educ. Agency 2010) • Substitute teacher removed student from playground because he was hitting his classmates • Once inside classroom, teacher tied student to chair for five minutes • CA law prohibits use of restraint except in limited circumstances to prevent imminent harm • Once inside classroom, student no longer posed threat. Therefore use of restraint violated state law.