M.H. v. New York City Department of Education

Background

M.H. sued the New York City Department of Education, the Board of Education, Chancellor David Banks, and the City of New York on behalf of himself and his child, I.A. The amended complaint asserted claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and New York state law.

Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the plaintiffs’ systemic claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), their Section 504 claims, and their Section 1983 claims. The court noted that defendants’ jurisdiction argument was based on the IDEA’s exhaustion requirements. Because the court found it could decide the adequacy of the allegations first, it addressed the Rule 12(b)(6) issue.

Systemic Claims

The court granted the motion as to the systemic IDEA claims. The amended complaint alleged that defendants had systemwide policies and practices that denied services, failed to timely implement students’ pendency rights, failed to implement hearing-officer orders, and shifted responsibility for implementing those orders to parents. The court found these allegations bare and conclusory because they provided no specific factual basis for inferring an endemic problem.

The court also found that the complaint principally described I.A.’s education and the plaintiffs’ individual disputes with defendants, rather than a broader IDEA violation. The plaintiffs’ reference to defendants’ involvement in a 2003 class action did not supply specific facts showing a systemic policy or practice during the relevant period. The court therefore dismissed the systemic IDEA claims.

The court further dismissed the plaintiffs’ Section 504 and Section 1983 claims insofar as they were based on alleged generally applicable, systemwide policies and practices.

Section 504 Claim Concerning I.A.

The court denied the motion as to the Section 504 claims based on defendants’ alleged denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to I.A. The court explained that a violation of the IDEA alone is not enough to establish a Section 504 violation; the plaintiffs also must show something such as bad faith or deliberate indifference. But the court stated that a prolonged deprivation of a FAPE can support deliberate indifference.

The plaintiffs alleged that I.A. was denied a FAPE for four years. Relying on comparable cases involving denials over multiple school years, the court concluded that the Section 504 claim based on the alleged failure to provide I.A. with a FAPE remained in the case.

Section 1983 Failure-to-Supervise-and-Train Claim

The only remaining challenged Section 1983 claim alleged that defendants failed to supervise and train their employees and agents. To plead municipal liability under Section 1983, plaintiffs must allege a municipal policy that caused the deprivation of a federal right. For a failure-to-supervise-or-train theory, such a policy may be inferred from deliberate indifference by supervisory officials, meaning that a municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of the actor’s conduct.

The court found that the complaint pleaded no facts supporting that theory and granted the motion as to the failure-to-supervise-and-train claim.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. It granted the motion as to the systemic IDEA claims, the systemic Section 504 and Section 1983 claims, and the Section 1983 failure-to-supervise-and-train claim. It denied the motion as to the Section 504 claims based on the alleged denial of a FAPE to I.A. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 23.