Court Rules That School District Did Not Violate the ADA or Section 504 When Employees Filed CPS Reports
August 2015
Number 41
A federal district court recently ruled that a school district and its employees did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 2008 (ADA) or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) when they filed reports of parental child abuse with child welfare authorities. (Thomas E. Smith v. Harrington, Ph.D et al (March 27, 2015) 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 39628.) In Smith, a parent claimed that the child abuse reports were filed in retaliation for his advocacy on behalf of his child with a disability. The parent's history of aggressive and erratic behavior was well documented through campus incident reports. The court concluded that these incident reports provided sufficient evidence that the mandated reporters in question properly filed reports of parental child abuse to welfare authorities and were not retaliatory.
Throughout the school year, Thomas Smith raised numerous complaints to District staff alleging that his eight-year-old daughter was being bullied by her classmates due to her Tourette's Disorder. When raising these complaints, Mr. Smith frequently exhibited aggressive behavior and inappropriate verbal outbursts towards District staff. A District investigation into the alleged bullying revealed that while certain isolated incidents occurred, there was no pattern of bullying directed at the student, and that her peers generally interacted respectfully and appropriately with her. Internally, District staff began to express concerns regarding the student's welfare due to Mr. Smith's escalating angry and erratic behavior.
One day, Mr. Smith burst into the office at the student's elementary school and demanded to speak to the principal regarding an alleged bullying incident. District staff explained to him that the principal was in a meeting in the library and was not available. Mr. Smith stormed into the library and began yelling at the principal. Mr. Smith refused to leave the library, blocking the door with his fists clenched. Throughout the encounter, the student was observed cowering behind Mr. Smith, and eventually sitting on the floor in an upright fetal position. It was only after the police were called that Mr. Smith agreed to leave.
After this incident, District staff became more concerned that Mr. Smith's aggressive and paranoid behavior caused undue anxiety for the student, as demonstrated by her cowering in the library. The principal and school psychologist submitted separate reports of suspected child abuse to the local child protective services (CPS). A CPS investigation revealed Mr. Smith's history of aggressive behavior, mental health issues, and paranoia. As a result of the investigation, a juvenile dependency court removed the student from Mr. Smith's custody. On appeal, the court returned the student to Mr. Smith's custody, holding that while Mr. Smith's actions were sufficiently alarming to detain the student initially, they were not sufficient to completely remove her from his custody.
In the present matter, Mr. Smith brought suit against the District, and four District officials, alleging that they had violated the ADA and Section 504 by submitting false reports of child abuse to CPS. Specifically, Mr. Smith alleged that the reports were submitted in retaliation for his efforts to advocate on behalf of his daughter. While the court held that Mr. Smith's retaliation claims were barred because he had already raised them unsuccessfully in the juvenile dependency proceedings, the decision provided a full analysis of the retaliation claims under Section 504 and the ADA.
In a significant point of interpretation, the Smith court held that the same standard that applies to retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also applies to retaliation claims under Section 504 and the ADA. To prevail on a retaliations claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that he or she (1) engaged in protected activity; (2) an adverse action was taken against him or her; and (3) his or her protected activity was a "but-for" cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer. (Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar (2013) 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2534.) In other words, a plaintiff must show that his or her protected activity was the sole reason that the defendant took the adverse action.
Applying the "but-for" standard, the district court held that Mr. Smith failed to prove the principal and school psychologist had reported him for suspected child abuse solely because of his advocacy for his daughter. The reports were not only focused on Mr. Smith's inappropriate behavior towards District officials, rather they focused on the noticeable effects that Mr. Smith's aggressive and angry behavior had on his daughter. The court further found that the principal and the school psychologist would have filed their reports even if Mr. Smith had not raised concerns regarding bullying on campus.
The Smith decision affirms that a plaintiff who wishes to bring a retaliation claim under the ADA or Section 504 must prove that his or her protected activity was the sole cause of the alleged adverse action. School districts may continue to fulfill their mandated reporter obligations without fear of liability based on unfounded retaliation claims.
If you have any questions regarding the Smith decision, or other questions regarding the ADA or Section 504, please contact one of our nine offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or download our Client News Brief App.
Number 41
A federal district court recently ruled that a school district and its employees did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act of 2008 (ADA) or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) when they filed reports of parental child abuse with child welfare authorities. (Thomas E. Smith v. Harrington, Ph.D et al (March 27, 2015) 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 39628.) In Smith, a parent claimed that the child abuse reports were filed in retaliation for his advocacy on behalf of his child with a disability. The parent's history of aggressive and erratic behavior was well documented through campus incident reports. The court concluded that these incident reports provided sufficient evidence that the mandated reporters in question properly filed reports of parental child abuse to welfare authorities and were not retaliatory.
Throughout the school year, Thomas Smith raised numerous complaints to District staff alleging that his eight-year-old daughter was being bullied by her classmates due to her Tourette's Disorder. When raising these complaints, Mr. Smith frequently exhibited aggressive behavior and inappropriate verbal outbursts towards District staff. A District investigation into the alleged bullying revealed that while certain isolated incidents occurred, there was no pattern of bullying directed at the student, and that her peers generally interacted respectfully and appropriately with her. Internally, District staff began to express concerns regarding the student's welfare due to Mr. Smith's escalating angry and erratic behavior.
One day, Mr. Smith burst into the office at the student's elementary school and demanded to speak to the principal regarding an alleged bullying incident. District staff explained to him that the principal was in a meeting in the library and was not available. Mr. Smith stormed into the library and began yelling at the principal. Mr. Smith refused to leave the library, blocking the door with his fists clenched. Throughout the encounter, the student was observed cowering behind Mr. Smith, and eventually sitting on the floor in an upright fetal position. It was only after the police were called that Mr. Smith agreed to leave.
After this incident, District staff became more concerned that Mr. Smith's aggressive and paranoid behavior caused undue anxiety for the student, as demonstrated by her cowering in the library. The principal and school psychologist submitted separate reports of suspected child abuse to the local child protective services (CPS). A CPS investigation revealed Mr. Smith's history of aggressive behavior, mental health issues, and paranoia. As a result of the investigation, a juvenile dependency court removed the student from Mr. Smith's custody. On appeal, the court returned the student to Mr. Smith's custody, holding that while Mr. Smith's actions were sufficiently alarming to detain the student initially, they were not sufficient to completely remove her from his custody.
In the present matter, Mr. Smith brought suit against the District, and four District officials, alleging that they had violated the ADA and Section 504 by submitting false reports of child abuse to CPS. Specifically, Mr. Smith alleged that the reports were submitted in retaliation for his efforts to advocate on behalf of his daughter. While the court held that Mr. Smith's retaliation claims were barred because he had already raised them unsuccessfully in the juvenile dependency proceedings, the decision provided a full analysis of the retaliation claims under Section 504 and the ADA.
In a significant point of interpretation, the Smith court held that the same standard that applies to retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also applies to retaliation claims under Section 504 and the ADA. To prevail on a retaliations claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that he or she (1) engaged in protected activity; (2) an adverse action was taken against him or her; and (3) his or her protected activity was a "but-for" cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer. (Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar (2013) 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2534.) In other words, a plaintiff must show that his or her protected activity was the sole reason that the defendant took the adverse action.
Applying the "but-for" standard, the district court held that Mr. Smith failed to prove the principal and school psychologist had reported him for suspected child abuse solely because of his advocacy for his daughter. The reports were not only focused on Mr. Smith's inappropriate behavior towards District officials, rather they focused on the noticeable effects that Mr. Smith's aggressive and angry behavior had on his daughter. The court further found that the principal and the school psychologist would have filed their reports even if Mr. Smith had not raised concerns regarding bullying on campus.
The Smith decision affirms that a plaintiff who wishes to bring a retaliation claim under the ADA or Section 504 must prove that his or her protected activity was the sole cause of the alleged adverse action. School districts may continue to fulfill their mandated reporter obligations without fear of liability based on unfounded retaliation claims.
If you have any questions regarding the Smith decision, or other questions regarding the ADA or Section 504, please contact one of our nine offices located statewide. You can also visit our website, follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or download our Client News Brief App.
As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this News Brief does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.
