Miller v Monroe School District Federal Complaint

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 1 LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN H. KRIKORIAN 4100 194TH STREET S.W., SUITE 215

LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 Telephone: (206) 547-1942

Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ERICA MILLER, individually, and as guardian for minor child, I.M.,

Plaintiff

vs. MONROE SCHOOL DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; MONROE SCHOOL BOARD, a local governing body of the MONROE SCHOOL DISTRICT; KATY WOODS, an individual; JASON HUTCHINSON, an individual; NANCY TRUITT PEIRCE, an individual; DARCY CHESSMAN, an individual; JIM SCOTT, an individual; LARA COLE, an individual; KEN HOOVER, an individual; MELISSA HART, an individual; MAIREAD KINNEY, an individual; and, JANNA DMOCHOWSKY, an individual,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CV14-1946 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES BASED UPON: (1) VIOLATION OF VIOLATION OF 42 USC 1983; (2) VIOLATION OF THE ADA; (3) VIOLATION OF THE WDS; (4) RETALIATION; (5) OUTRAGE; (6) BATTERY; (7) ASSAULT; AND, (8) NEGLIGENCE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Comes now, ERICA MILLER, individually and in her capacity as legal guardian of I.M.,

and alleges as follows:

!aaassseee 222:::111444---cccvvv---000111999444666---JJJ!! DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt 111 FFFiiillleeeddd 111222///222333///111444 PPPaaagggeee 111 ooofff 444666



Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Erica Miller (Miller), is the natural mother and legal guardian of I.M.,

a nine-year-old boy with autism. Miller brings this action in her own right and on I.M.s behalf

pursuant to FRCP 17(a)(1) and (c)(1). Miller has a legally cognizable interest in I.M.s

education. Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007).

2. Autism is a disability within the meaning of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA), 20 USC 1402(3)(A) and 34 CFR 300.8. I.M. is a qualified

individual with a disability within the meaning of 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 USC

705(20), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 USC 12131(2), 28 CFR 35.104

and the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), RCW 49.60.040(7).

3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Monroe

School District (the District) is a political subdivision of the state and a local education agency

and recipient of federal funds under the IDEA (20 USC 1401(15) and 34 CFR 300.28). The

District is a public entity as defined by the ADA, (43 USC 12131(1) and 28 CFR 35.104) and

the WLAD (RCW 49.60.040(2) and WAC 162-28-030). The District has the responsibility to

provide I.M. with full and equal access to a free and appropriate public education in compliance

with federal and state laws and regulations, including those pertaining to the use of restraints and

seclusions. The District is the governmental body responsible for the operation of the Districts

schools, including Chain Lake Elementary and Salem Woods Elementary and is responsible for

the training and supervision of all of its faculty and staff. The District is located in and carries

out its functions in the State of Washington.

4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Monroe

School Board (the Board) is the local governing body of the District and functions under




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

powers delegated to it by the State Legislature. Its legal powers, duties and responsibilities are

derived from State statute. The Board establishes District policies to be administered by the

District Superintendent. Its Mission statement is as follows: [T]he Monroe Public Schools will

provide a safe, nurturing learning environment with a highly qualified, effective staff; promote

active, engaging instruction for all students; and partner with families and community support

agencies in order to ensure a learning community that practices shared leadership, embraces

diversity and demonstrates a belief that each child can succeed. The Board is chargeable with

reviewing the performance of the Superintendent and deals with the District through its

Superintendent. The Board is located and carries out its function in the State of Washington.

5. Defendant Katy Woods (Woods), defendant Jason Hutchinson (Hutchinson),

defendant Nancy Truitt Peirce (Truitt Peirce), defendant Darcy Chessman (Chessman) and

defendant Jim Scott (Scott) are the individual members of the Board and at all times relevant

herein, were the duly constituted and acting governing board of the District with the ultimate

responsibility for the education of those students attending the schools within the District

(hereinafter collectively referred to as Individual Board Members). Based on information and

belief, all Individual Board Members are residents of Washington State. Each of the Individual

Board Member defendants is being sued in their individual capacity.

6. The Defendants are not entitled to immunity for any claim asserted herein.

Hason v. Med. Bd. Of California, 279 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2002); Preschooler II v. Clark County

School Board of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2007); 42 USC 2000d-7(a)(1). By accepting

funds under the Rehabilitation Act, the District waived immunity for claims brought under 504

of the Rehabilitation Act. Pugliese v. Dillenberg, 346 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2003).




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Lara Cole

(Cole) is and at all times relevant to this complaint was, an employee of the District and holds

the position of Director of Student Services. Cole is responsible for ensuring compliance with all

state and federal laws governing education for children with disabilities and for ensuring that

qualifying children with a disability receive an education in compliance with their individual

education programs under the IDEA. Coles acts and omissions alleged herein were taken under

color of law and in the course and scope of her employment with the District. The Board and the

Direct are liable for Coles conduct, as set forth below. Based upon information and believe,

Cole is a resident of Washington State. Cole is also being sued in her individual capacity.

8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Ken Hoover

(Hoover) is, and all times relevant, was employed by the District and holds the position of

Superintendent. Hoover is responsible for all matters relating to the day-to-day operations of the

District and ensuring that District employees comply with federal and state laws and are properly

trained. All of Hoovers actions alleged herein were taken under color of law and in the course

and scope of his employment with the District. The Board and the District are liable for

Hoovers conduct, as set forth below. Based upon information and believe, Hoover is a resident

of Washington State. Hoover is also being sued in his individual capacity.

9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Melissa

Hart (Hart) is, and at all times relevant, to this complaint was, a special education teacher

employed by the District. Hart exercised direct and immediate control over I.M. and was

directly responsible for providing him with educational services pursuant to his May 2013

individual education plan and in compliance therewith. All of Harts actions alleged herein were

taken under color of law and in the course and scope of her employment with the District. The




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Board and the District are liable for Harts conduct, as set forth below. Based upon information

and believe, Hart is a resident of Washington State. Hart is also being sued in her individual

capacity.

10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Mairead

Kinney (Kinney) is and at all times relevant to this complaint was, a special education teacher

employed by the District. Kinney exercised direct and immediate control over I.M. and was

directly responsible for providing him with educational services pursuant to and in compliance

with his individual education plan. All of Kinneys actions alleged herein were taken under

color of law and in the course and scope of her employment with the District. The Board and the

District are liable for Kinneys conduct, as set forth below. Based upon information and believe,

Kinney is a resident of Washington State. Kinney is also being sued in her individual capacity.

11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Janna

Dmochowsky (Dmochowsky) is and at all times relevant to this complaint was, an employee

of the District and is the principal at Salem Woods Elementary, a school within the District. All

of Dmochowskys actions alleged herein were taken under color of law and in the course and

scope of her employment with the District. As principal of Salem Woods, Dmochowsky was

responsible for ensuring the training of the special education staff at the school and ensuring that

I.M. received educational services pursuant to and in compliance with his individual education

plan. The Board and the District are liable for Dmochowskys conduct, as set forth below.

Based upon information and believe, Dmochowsky is a resident of Washington State.

Dmochowsky is also being sued in her individual capacity.

12. The District and the Board are liable for the conduct of the individual defendants

named herein because: 1) their acts and omissions were carried out within the course and scope




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

of their employment with the District or their membership in the Board; 2) Cole, as Director of

Student Services, Hoover, as Superintendent, Dmochowky, as Principal of Salem Woods and

Hart and Kinney, as I.M.s special education teachers, had final authority to make decisions

affecting I.M.s rights as alleged herein; 3) the acts and omissions of these individually named

defendants were carried out pursuant to and consistent with a policy, custom or practice of the

District and the Board, including a policy of inaction; 4) the Board and the District acted with

deliberate and intentional indifference or disregard for the rights, safety and wellbeing of I.M.;

and 5) the District and the Board ratified the conduct of each of the individual defendants named

herein.

13. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereon allege that each defendant named

in this Complaint was at all times herein mentioned and now is the agent, servant and employee

of the other defendants herein, and was at all such times was acting within the course and scope

of said agency and employment and with the consent and permission of each of the other co-

defendants, and each of the defendants herein ratified each of the acts of each of the other co-

defendants, and each of them.

14. With respect to the each individually named defendant, it is specifically alleged

that all acts performed by them were done for the benefit of their marital community.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

15. This action arises under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution, and other federal laws, including but not limited to the ADA, the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the IDEA.




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

16. This Court has original jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 USC

1331(federal question jurisdiction) and 1343 (federal civil rights jurisdiction). This Court

has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1367 to hear all related state law claims.

17. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 USC 1391 because all parties

reside in this judicial district.

EXHAUSTION

18. None of the claims asserted herein are subject to the exhaustion provisions of the

IDEA because:

a) Plaintiffs are seeking remedies that are not available under the IDEA, including

damages for physical and emotional injuries.

b) Exhaustion is not required for any claim sounding in a violation of civil rights,

disability discrimination or for claims asserted under state law.

d) Exhaustion is not required for failure to provide a free and appropriate

education under 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as distinct from a free and appropriate

education under the IDEA.

e) Exhaustion is not required when a claim is premised on the failure to implement

an existing individual education program under the IDEA.

f) Exhaustion is not required when doing so would be futile.

g) Exhaustion is not required when a District has adopted a policy or pursued a

practice that is contrary to law.

h) Fundamental notions of justice and judicial economy undermine exhaustion in

this case. A due process proceeding was instituted October 30, 2014, and is currently

pending. The District has taken affirmative action in an attempt to stall that proceeding




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

and has obtained two continuances that have extended the decision deadline to April 29,

2015 - 106 days after the deadline set forth in. WAC 392-172A-05090(2) and 392-172A-

05110(1).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I.M.s Disability

19. I.M. was diagnosed with autism in 2011, at the age of five. Autism is complex

neurobiological disorder that affects the manner in which the brain processes and organizes

information. The hallmark of autism is impaired social cognition the ability to read and

interpret verbal and non-verbal cues and communicative nuances. Because these modes of

communication are inherent in all human interaction, deficits in this area lead to frustration and

anger that manifest in behavioral problems and tantrums. As such, educational plans for school

aged children with autism focus heavily on teaching self-regulation and relaxation skills as well

as tools for recognizing situations that contain potential triggers so that self-regulation skills can

be employed before an escalated emotional response takes hold.

20. The IDEA was drafted in recognition of the unique challenges facing those with

disabilities such as autism and guarantees them a free appropriate public education by

mandating the provision of educational and related services in conformity with an individual

education program (IEP) 20 USC 1401(9),(26) and (29); and 1412(a)(1). The IEP sets forth

the unique needs and abilities of the child and the manner in which educational services are to be

delivered based upon those unique needs and skills.

I.M.s IEP

21. I.M. was enrolled in the District for the 2012/2013 year and attended second

grade in Amy Mudrovichs (Mudrovich) Positive Behavioral Support classroom at Chain Lake




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Elementary. During the course of that year, Miller worked closely with Mudrovich and the

classroom staff to create a comprehensive IEP specifically tailored to I.M.s unique challenges

and abilities. The IEP centered on five identified key characteristics. First, I.M. loves

technology. He learns easily on the computer and is highly motivated by the ability to earn free

time to play computer games. As such, computer time is I.M.s primary positive behavioral

support and considered to be integral to his academic success. Second, I.M. suffers from

depressed fine motor skills that make handwriting difficult, if not excruciating. As a result, I.M.

is extremely resistant to writing and any task that requires writing is inevitably met with a

behavioral outburst. Because I.M. readily learned keyboarding skills, the continuous writing

goal was removed from his IEP in 2013. Third, I.M. requires preferential seating that is away

from stimulus and equipped with a sensory seat cushion. This also allows him to create a zone

of autonomy and calm when feeling threatened or over stimulated. Fourth, I.M. is reluctant to

changes in routine and resists abrupt transitions in the day. Finally, I.M. cannot read social cues

or interpret nuances in tone or rhythm of speech. He is unable to infer the motivation or intent

behind the actions of others and requires the consistent use of familiar vocabulary. I.M. is

equally challenged in his ability to express his own thoughts and feelings as he cannot

spontaneously connect words necessary to express himself. All five of these traits were carefully

incorporated into his IEP.

22. I.M.s IEP includes a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP). The BIP is designed

to provide the staff with instruction on how to respond to disruptive behavior while teaching I.M.

self-regulating and calming techniques. Calming methods that have proven effective with I.M.

include deep breathing and allowing I.M. the opportunity to independently remove himself from

the environment or create for himself a privacy zone, such as under his desk. The BIP requires




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the staff to model these techniques as disruptive behaviors surface so that he can ultimately learn

to employ them independently.

23. Aversive interventions are a last resort response to behavior that creates a risk

of physical harm to the child or others in the vicinity. Washington law provides strict guidelines

for the use of aversive interventions and mandates close scrutiny of instances in which they are

employed. WAC 392-172A-03130. Holds and seclusions are the two most severe forms of

aversive interventions. Both pose significant dangers of physical and psychological harm, and

even death. These risks are even greater when used on children with autism, as such children are

unable to discern why they are on the receiving of aggression and inclined to perceive it as

punitive or even cataclysmic.

24. Aversive interventions must be carried in full compliance with a childs written

aversive intervention plan (AIP). The written AIP serves to identify the specific aversive

interventions that are permitted and the conditions on their use. This is to ensure that the child is

safeguarded against the misuse of aversive interventions. In order to guarantee this level of

protection, the school is also required to take affirmative steps to ensure that all staff members

know the contents of a childs AIP. WAC 392-172A-03120(2).

25. With respect to isolation, the law requires seclusion rooms to be ventilated,

lighted and temperature controlled. The only circumstance in which a locked door is permitted

is when a staff member maintains constant visual contact through a window. Under no

circumstances is a child to be left unattended in seclusion and a staff member must remain in

visual or auditory range, at all times. WAC 392- 172A-03130(2)(d) and (e). The staff member

who carries out the aversive intervention must complete a detailed written report within two

business days of the incident. The school is required to make a reasonable effort to call the




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

parent within 24 hours and provide a copy of the written report within 5 business days. RCW

28A.600.485.

26. I.M.s IEP includes written AIP, which authorizes the use of holds and seclusions

in very limited circumstances and only under certain conditions. First, only staff members that

are Right Response trained are authorized to carry out any type of aversive intervention. Second,

aversive interventions can only be used in situations that present a risk of physical injury to I.M.,

other students or staff. Under no circumstances are aversive interventions permitted as

punishment for behavioral outbursts. Third, no aversive intervention can be employed prior to

attempting the following positive behavioral interventions in the following order: 1) I.M. is

asked to take a time out at his desk with his head down; 2) I.M. is asked to take a time out in a

more secluded area of the classroom; 3) I.M. is to sit in the seclusion room with the door open

and with an adult in the doorway; and 4) I.M. remains in the seclusion room with door closed

and with an adult monitoring through a window. None of the conditions in the AIP are

discretionary.

27. The Right Response training mandated by I.M.s AIP requires completion of a 14-

hour certification course. The Right Response philosophy is founded on the notion that an

aggressive response to an escalated situation will only serve to make matters worse. As such

Right Response trainees are taught to assess and meet the childs needs and shift away from the

mindset of winning a power struggle. In fact, the first five hours of the Right Response training

course is devoted to de-escalation techniques. In the event that a physical hold or seclusion is

required after all de-escalation techniques have failed, the course provides training on how to

implement those interventions in the safest possible manner.




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

28. In addition to the reporting requirements set forth in RCW 28A.600.485, I.M.s

BIP requires the staff to prepare a written summary at the end of each day that serves inform

Miller of the significant events of the day (hereinafter communication journal).

29. The efforts invested in the creation of I.M.s IEP, BIP and AIP paid off and I.M.

enjoyed a successful and productive second grade, with only isolated behavioral incidents.

Harts Abusive Interventions

30. In the fall of 2013, I.M. was assigned to attend third grade in defendant Harts

Positive Behavioral Support classroom at Chain Lake Elementary. It was Harts first year at

Chain Lake. Hart repeatedly violated the mandates set forth in I.M.s IEP as well as the

governing law, causing I.M. to suffer physical and emotional harm.

31. On the morning of the first day of school, Hart asked I.M. to write his name. As

the IEP predicted, I.M. resisted with a behavioral response. Without employing any of the

positive behavioral supports mandated in the BIP, Hart and a para-educator took I.M., via a 2

person escort to a tiny closet inside an adjacent room within the portable classroom. The closet

has no vents or air ducts. There are no windows to the outside. There is a small window in the

door to the room but, at the time of I.Ms seclusion, it was blacked out with construction type

paper. The door is, or at the time of I.M. seclusion was, equipped with locking mechanism that

is built into the handle so that the lock engages when the handle is pressed in, either by design

or by malfunction. There is no doorknob on the inside creating for the child a visual reminder

that he or she is not free to leave. Hart left I.M. locked in the closet, unattended, for five

minutes.

32. Hart also disregarded the provision in I.M.s IEP for computer accommodations.

Not only was no computer installed in the classroom, but also Hart stated that I.M. would have




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

no access to any school computer except during designated lab times. Three hours after the

handwriting incident, Hart locked I.M. in the seclusion closet for 10 minutes after discovering

that he was playing with his PlayStation Portable. At 3:20 that afternoon, Hart locked I.M. in the

closet for a third time, because he was frustrated at another student in line [and] pushed the

other student into the wall. All three seclusions were imposed by a two-person escort to the

seclusion closet. No positive behavioral supports were attempted prior to seclusion as required

by the IEP in effect at the time.

33. Hart called Miller after the first day of school and advised that I.M. had been

escorted to time out though she did not provide specifics and did not disclose the nature of the

seclusion room. The communication journal states that the day started great and vaguely lists

three quiet room visits. Miller expressed her concern about the physical contact that may have

been involved in the escorts and reiterated I.M.s need for personal space and other

considerations as set forth in this IEP. Although Miller had yet to learn of the nature and scope

of the IEP violations, Miller was concerned enough to request that there be no further seclusions

and that any time outs take place in the principals office. When I.M. arrived home from

school, his face was flush with bright red dots that appeared to be broken capillaries. Because of

his communication deficits, I.M. was unable to tell Miller what had happened to him that day.

34. On the morning of September 5, the second day of school, I.M. was locked in the

seclusion closet for 17 minutes. This incident was less than 20 minutes after the start of class

and because I.M. became aggressive after being asked to write his name. At 12:53, two staff

members placed I.M. in a floor hold for 5 minutes. No behavior is cited for the intervention.

Rather, the report states simply that I.M. was informed that he was expected to attend music.

At 1:57 that afternoon, I.M. was locked in the seclusion closet again, this time for kicking a




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

classmate after I.M. was asked to participate in a group activity. Miller was not advised of the

aversive interventions on September 5. In fact, the communication journal sent home that

afternoon stated: Today was a great day. I.M. arrived home from school with feces in his

pants.

35. On the third day, Friday the 6th, I.M. was locked in seclusion at 9:32 after the

teacher asked him to sit safely in his chair and I.M. tried to hit her and kick her. At 12:45, I.M.

was sent back to seclusion, via a two-person escort, because he punched another student after

getting annoyed at another students words.

36. Just prior to the afternoon bell on Friday, I.M. ran out of the classroom and hid in

the library. Melissa Oliver (Oliver), the school principal, talked I.M. out of hiding and

ultimately onto the bus. Oliver and Hart then called Miller, advised of the library incident and

stated that I.M.s bus would be late as a result. Miller asked about the communication with I.M.

just prior to the incident, as language can be a trigger. Hart stated that she does not believe that

the vocabulary used with I.M. is important. Neither Oliver nor Hart mentioned the seclusions

that day, though it is unknown if Oliver knew of them at that time. The communication journal

described the day as follows: [I.M.] had a pretty good day. Each day has been better than the

day before. The journal references the second seclusion, although it is characterized as a time

out. No mention is made of the morning seclusion.

37. After the first day of school, I.M. began to develop unusual behaviors. He

became fixated on locks and insisted that all windows and doors in the home remain open. The

click sound of the automatic car door lock would ignite an inconsolable panic attack. He

started having nightmares. Upon entering a new environment, I.M. insisted on knowing all




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

routes of escape even to the point of assessing how he might dig through the floor or a wall if

he were trapped. Over the course of the weekend of the 6th, these behaviors grew in intensity.

38. On the morning of Monday September 9, Miller called the school and asked for

copies of I.M.s BIP and AIP that Hart was to be following, as well as all aversive intervention

reports. Miller further requested the opportunity to observe in the classroom. There are no

documented reports of any aversive interventions that day.

39. On Tuesday September 10, at 11:35, Hart asked I.M. to stop making fart noises in

music. Although the report is unclear, it appears that I.M. stopped but then kicked and pinched

Hart. Hart responded by restraining I.M. on the floor for an unreported length of time. The

parent communication book described it as a pretty good day with a few hiccups. Miller did

not receive a phone call regarding the incident. Miller did not receive the intervention report

until September 16, when it was produced pursuant to her written formal request.

40. On Wednesday September 11 at 9:46, I.M. was restrained in a two-person hold,

first in a chair and then on the floor. There is no entry in the communication journal regarding

the incident and Miller did not receive a phone call.

41. On the afternoon of September 11 (and without knowledge of the restraint

employed earlier that morning), Miller appeared for the scheduled observation and saw the

seclusion closet for the first time. It was lined in padded material. One wall had brown smears

of what appeared to be dried feces. The other walls were stained with a clear liquid. Miller was

horrified. She collected I.M., went to Olivers office and informed her of the situation. Miller

then learned that Hart did not have the Right Response training mandated in I.M.s IEP. The

District never provided Miller a copy of the September 11 incident report and she saw it for first

time in a subsequent proceeding.




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

District Refuses to Honor I.M.s IEP

42. Miller requested an immediate meeting of the IEP team and a meeting was

scheduled for September 16. Defendant Cole, the Direct of Student Services, emailed Miller and

asked if she would be bringing an attorney to the meeting. Cole explained that attorney

attendance would force a delay of the meeting, as the district would insist on having its own

attorney present as well. Miller responded that she would be attending alone, but requested that

Cole attend in person.

43. The IDEA considers parental participation in the IEP process critical to

ensuring a quality education. As such, the statute contains extensive procedural safeguards to

ensure that parental rights to full participation are guaranteed. Winkelman v. Parma City

School Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 524 (2007); Doug C. v. Hawaii Dept. of Educ., 720 F.3d 1038, 1040

(9th Cir. 2013); Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified School Dist., 317 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir.

2003); 42 USC 1415(a); WAC 392-172A-03100 and 05000(2). Access to complete and

accurate educational records is integral to a parents ability to fully participate in the IEP process.

20 USC 1415(b)(1); WAC 392-172A-05000(2). Whenever there is a proposed change to an

IEP, the school must document the matter in what the IDEA refers to as a prior written notice.

20 USC 1415(b)(3) and (c); WAC 392-172A-05010.

44. Sometime prior to September 16, Cole drafted a new AIP, which was presented to

Miller at the time of the September 16 meeting. Although the purpose of the meeting was to

address the improper use of aversive interventions, the September 16 draft AIP expanded the use

of these interventions. Specifically, the new draft permitted aversive interventions to deter future

disruptive behaviors or when I.M.s behavior disrupts the learning of others students. The new

AIP also eliminated the requirement that the staff members employing aversive interventions are




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Right Response certified. Miller objected to all proposed changes to the AIP. In fact, Miller did

not want the AIP or BIP changed but, rather, assurances that the current plans would be enforced

as written. She orally withdrew consent for any aversive interventions and requested records

regarding staff training. No prior written notice was drafted memorializing the September 16

meeting. On September 18, Miller provided the district with a written withdrawal of consent for

aversion interventions. Another IEP meeting was scheduled for September 19.

45. At the September 19 meeting, Cole presented Miller with yet another revised AIP.

This second revised AIP served to further expand the permissible the use of aversive

interventions by allowing seclusions in excess of 20 minutes. As with her prior draft, Cole

removed all reference to the requirement for Right Response training. Cole also provided Miller

with a new BIP from which she had stripped all positive behavioral supports, including computer

and Wii time - despite a determination that these supports are integral to I.M.s success. Cole

also deleted the requirement for the implementation of less invasive interventions prior to

seclusion, such as head down on desk. Cole also deleted all interventions that would enable I.M.

to self-regulate, such as the ability to remove himself from stimulus or creation a zone of

protected personal space.

46. Miller now faced two problems: a teacher that displayed contempt for I.M.s

disability and a school district that openly admitted that it would not comply with I.M.s IEP.

With respect to the first problem, Miller requested that I.M. be transferred to another classroom

within the District, on the grounds that Harts classroom was an unsafe environment. Cole

refused, stating that there were no options in the District, other than Harts Chain Lake

classroom. With respect to the second problem, Cole stated that no matter where I.M. is placed,

the newly expanded AIP and the newly gutted BIP would govern the services provided,




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

notwithstanding Millers objections. The District steadfastly refused to honor or implement

I.M.s May 2013 IEP and this refusal continues to this day.

Miller Seeks Resolution

47. Miller urged Cole to help her find another solution where I.M. could receive an

education without being physically and emotionally harmed. Cole stated that family had only

four options: 1) Harts classroom at Chain Lake; 2) an inter-district transfer; 3) home school; or

4) private school, solely at the familys expense. Miller stated that she would like to transfer

I.M. to the autism program in Sultan and asked if Cole would assist in facilitating the transfer.

Cole advised that she has no control over transfers and could offer no help. She further advised

that, if I.M. does transfer, the District would not provide transportation. Remarkably, Cole then

advised Miller that until she elected one of Coles four options, I.M.s absences would be marked

as unexcused for truancy purposes.

48. On September 26, Miller called Cole hoping to discuss placement options. The

office manager, Heidi Dalton, advised Miller that Cole would not speak to Miller on the phone

and that all future communication would have to be by email. Miller advised that she does not

have a home computer or Internet service and while she is able to retrieve email on her phone it

is cumbersome and she is unable to open attachments.

49. Miller then contacted Sound Options, a mediation service contracted with the

Office of the Superintendent for Public Instruction (OSPI) and asked for a mediation. A

mediation was held on October 9, 2013 before Sarah Bergdahl (Bergdahl). The District

continued in its refusal to comply with any of the safety measures in the May 2013 IEP and no

compromise was reached.




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

50. On October 14, Miller went to the office of defendant Hoover, the District

Superintendent, to plead for help. She was told that Hoover was unavailable. Hoovers secretary

took a written message stating that Miller needed to talk with him. Miller provided the secretary

with a handwritten letter outlining the events of the prior six weeks and a draft of a citizens

complaint that she was planning to file and urged Hoover to help. Although Cole was at the

center of the problem, Hoover gave to Cole the materials that Miller left with his office and

instructed Cole to respond on his behalf.

51. At this point, I.M. had been out of school for over a month. On October 21,

Miller emailed Oliver and requested homework materials so that I.M. could keep up with the

curriculum pending resolution of the placement. Unbeknownst to Miller, the District had since

removed I.M. from the registry due to unexcused absences. Oliver advised Miller of I.M.s

withdrawal from the district and stated that such prevented her from providing any sort of

curriculum. On the same day, the District instituted a truancy proceeding against I.M.

52. On October 29, 2013, Miller filed a citizens complaint with OSPI, in which she

outlined the conduct of the District and the emotional and psychological harm I.M. suffered as a

result of the improper aversive interventions. Prior this filing, the District agreed to attend an

IEP meeting on November 12, 2013 and agreed to have Bergdahl serve as a facilitator. The

meeting resulted in a compromise whereby I.M. would be placed in in defendant Kinneys

special education class at Salem Woods elementary. Although the District still refused to

comply with the May 2013 AIP and BIP and insisted on placement pursuant to its expanded AIP,

it agreed to the following conditions: 1) seclusions, if any, would take place in the front office; 2)

Miller would be immediately called if a seclusion lasted more than 20 minutes; 3) a follow up




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

meeting would be held in 30 days and, most importantly; 4) all staff members employing

aversive interventions were to be Right Response trained.

53. While the District strongly advocated against the training requirement, Miller

insisted given the dangers presented when untrained staff implement aversive interventions. The

District relented and agreed to provide the training. Thereafter and prior to the time I.M. started

at Salem Woods, Miller requested confirmation that all staff had been trained. In an email dated

November 18, Cole confirmed in writing that the staff had been trained.

Kinney and Dmochowsky Abusive Interventions

54. I.M. started at Salem Woods on Tuesday November 19, 2013. At lunchtime, the

staff took from I.M. his home packed lunch on the grounds that only prepackaged commercially

prepared foods were allowed in the classroom, as a result of another childs food allergy. I.M.

was not provided with a substitute lunch.

55. On the morning of November 20, I.M. was carrying his chair from circle time to

his desk in a manner that the Kinney felt was unsafe. As a result, Kinney and a para-educator

placed I.M. in a two-person hold before escorting him to seclusion. The seclusion room was not

in front office, as provided in the November 12 agreement. Rather, Kinney took I.M. to a vacant

office in a separate building north of the main building in which the classroom and front office

were located. The vacant office is accessed by a single exterior door along an outside covered

pathway, adjacent to the playground. The window to the room is completely obscured by a

removable air conditioning unit. Kinney placed I.M. in the office, locked the door and left. She

returned 25 minutes later, at which time she determined that I.M. would remain in seclusion for

an additional period of time. No one called Miller, as required by the November 12 agreement.




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

No one remained in visual or auditory contact as required by WAC 392- 172A-03130(2)(d) and

(e).

56. Upon learning that he would not be released from seclusion, I.M. began to panic.

He identified a switch on the wall that he believed to be an emergency call or help button. He

pounded the switch so hard that he punctured a shallow hole in palm of his hand and broke the

switch. At 10:40, after 65 minutes in unattended seclusion, Kinney returned for I.M. She then

took him to the nurses office for treatment of the hand injury.

57. The next day, at 12:50 pm, I.M. refused to wash his hands. According to the

report, I.M. then hit a teacher. Kinney and a para-educator placed I.M. in two person hold before

escorting him to the same vacant office where he had injured his hand the day before. Kinney

placed I.M. in the room, locked the door and left. Kinney returned 20 minutes later but decided

that I.M. would remain in seclusion for another 20 minutes. She again locked the door and left.

Miller was not called. Kinney prepared an incident report. At or about the same time, she

amended the November 20 report, prepared the day prior, to include the words clear and present

danger of serious harm next to the language regarding the manner in which I.M. was carrying

his chair.

58. On the morning of Tuesday November 26, I.M. panicked upon arrival of the

school bus and refused to get on the bus. He told Miller that the teachers were hurting him and

that he is afraid that they will do it again. Miller took I.M. back home and emailed Cole

requesting an emergency IEP meeting. Cole refused, stating that the circumstances do not

warrant a meeting despite the fact that the November 12 agreement required a meeting within

30 days of placement, irrespective of any incidents. Miller removed I.M. from Salem Woods




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

and enrolled him in home school. It was later confirmed that Kinney was not Right Response

trained contrary to Coles November 18 written confirmation.

59. After she removed I.M. from Salem Woods, Miller learned that the school

principal, defendant Dmochowsky, performed holds on I.M. that included pinning him to the

floor. Miller is informed and believes that Dmochowsky employed these interventions on at

least two occasions, though it is unknown if they were performed in connection with or in

addition to the two seclusions identified above. There is no written record of Dmochowskys

interventions. Dmochowsky is not Right Response trained.

District Attacks Miller and Challenges OSPI Corrective Action

60. During this time, the District hired the law firm of Perkins Coie to defend against

the claims asserted in the citizens complaint. Perkins attorney, Philip Thompson (Thompson),

prepared the response. Because the complaint was filed prior to the November 12 agreement, the

issues therein were limited to a review of the events at Chain Lake. Although Miller submitted

evidence with the complaint that unequivocally established the Districts failure to implement the

May 2013 IEP and Harts lack of Right Response training, the District denied all wrongdoing.

Thompson stated that the complaint was nothing more than a campaign to create conflict

arising out of Millers and I.M.s disappointment that Mudrovich (I.M.s second grade teacher)

was no longer teaching in the District. Thompson further accused Miller of being orally

abusive and discourteous.

61. In addition to ad hominem attacks, the Districts written response to the complaint

contained the following misrepresentations: 1) that Hart was Right Response trained at the time

of the aversive interventions; 2) that the Chain Lake seclusion closet was ventilated and

temperature controlled and, most remarkably; 3) that the amended AIP and BIP were created at




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Millers request. Thompson, acting on behalf of the District, further stated that the District

advocated for a 10-minute limit on seclusions but that Miller insisted on giving the staff the

discretion to seclude her child for up to 20 minutes.

62. On January 3, 2014, Douglas Gill, OSPIs Director of Special Education, issued a

decision and concluded that the District: 1) failed to implement I.M.s May 2013 AIP and BIP;

2) failed to document decisions made at the September 16, 2013 IEP meeting justifying the

expansion of the AIP; 3) failed to show how the amendments to the AIP and BIP were warranted

and based upon I.M.s needs; 4) failed to properly train Hart on Right Response; 5) failed to

properly notify Miller of all aversion interventions; and 6) failed to provide Miller with all

documents responsive to Millers records request.

63. OSPI ordered corrective action that required the District to ensure that its staff is

trained on the issues surrounding these infractions so as to prevent reoccurrence. OSPI ordered

the District to prepare written training materials that would serve to train District employees on:

a) the procedures for amending IEPs; b) implementation of aversive and behavioral intervention

plans; and c) documentation and reporting requirements when restraints or seclusions are

employed. The District was ordered to submit the proposed training materials to OSPI by March

17. Once approved by OSPI, the District was required to disseminate the materials to District

personnel and thereafter submit proof to OSPI that all special education staff members had

received a copy.

64. Notwithstanding OPSIs decision, the District continued in its refusal to honor the

May 2013 IEP and attacked the OSPI decision as inexplicable. With respect to the finding of

Harts lack of training, the District submitted the declaration of Hart wherein she attests that,

earlier in the morning on the first day of the school year, prior to the start of class, she received




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1.5 hours of the 14 hour Right Response training course. The District argued that such served to

satisfy the Right Response training requirement set forth in I.M.s IEP. OSPI defended its

decision and rejected the claim that 1.5 hours of a 14-hour training class served to satisfying the

training requirements in I.M.s AIP. OSPI further stated that judicial review of its decision could

be obtained pursuant to a due process hearing.

65. On March 8, 2014, Miller emailed the members of the school Board and advised

of the Districts continued refusal to concede the infractions cited in the OSPI decision. She

stated that the aversive interventions that District insists on employing are dangerous and that

I.M. suffered physical and emotional harm as a result. She further advised that the Districts

continued insistence on the right to employ these abusive interventions has caused I.M. to miss

almost a year of school and that Hoover has ignored all of her requests for help. Finally, Miller

requested permission to make a presentation on the issue of aversive interventions at the next

school board meeting, scheduled for March 24, 2014.

66. On March 14, defendant Woods, president of the Board, responded to Millers

email and confirmed Millers inclusion on the March 24 meeting agenda. Woods contacted

Hoover and inquired about Millers requests for help. Once again, Hoover abdicated all

responsibility and Woods advised Miller that Hoover had again delegated the matter to Cole

claiming that she is the most knowledgeable about special education rules.

67. On March 24, 2014, one hour prior to the Board meeting, Miller presented the

Board with the required audience comment form outlining the issues to be presented. The Board

then proceeded with its pre-board meeting before commencing the public meeting at 6:00 pm.

Just prior to the time allotted on the agenda for Miller to speak, the Board advised that it would

be holding a closed-door executive session with the Districts counsel, for the purpose of




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

discussing potential litigation. The session lasted 50 minutes, after which the public meeting

resumed and Miller spoke on the Districts improper use of aversive interventions.

68. On April 3, 2014, more than two weeks after the Districts draft training materials

were due, Thompson wrote OSPI and reiterated the Districts position that corrective action was

unwarranted as it was based on an erroneous decision. Thompson nonetheless agreed to provide

training materials in an effort to resolve the dispute with [OSPI]. Thompson then submitted to

OSPI what appeared to be copies of compliance materials prepared by another district in a

separate and unrelated matter. OSPI identified the materials as such and again requested that the

District comply with the January 3 decision and prepare its own training guidelines. It is

unknown if any such materials were thereafter provided.

I.M. Enrolls at Dolan Academy

69. During this time, Miller tried to convince the District to go back to mediation at

Sound Options so that I.M. could return to school in physically and emotionally safe

environment. The District refused. In an email dated May 2, 2014 Cole explained:

[T]he district declines your request [sic] address these issues in another mediation session. We have all devoted considerable energy toward resolving your concerns during the previous mediation and at both IEP meetings, concluding with the last IEP, with which you agreed. 70. In June 2014, I.M. began receiving tutoring services at Dolan Academy, a small

private school that provides customized instruction to learners of all abilities through science-

based data driven modalities. He has made significant academic gains. When he first started at

Dolan, considerable time was invested in addressing I.M.s anxieties and his association between

school and abuse. I.M. also fears that members of the staff at Chain Lake and Salem Woods are

searching for him and want to hurt him. He is particularly fearful that they will break into Dolan




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

and capture him. The staff at Dolan have addressed this anxiety in a thoughtful and productive

manner. While I.M. has reached a level of comfort at Dolan, his fear of capture by District staff

remains with him to this day and is woven into his daily experience. He remains fixated on

knowing the routes of ingress and egress in all situations. He continues to have frequent

nightmares. I.M. has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and he receives regular

therapy services from a licensed mental health counselor who specializes in autism and

childhood trauma.

71. Since attending sessions at Dolan, there has not been a single incident in which

I.M. engaged in behavior that presented a risk of harm to himself or others. There have been no

aversive interventions. In addition, I.M. is developing friendships with other students and is

learning fundamental social skills that will form the foundation of continued growth and success.

Miller Seeks Private Placement

72. The Miller family is unable to sustain full time tuition at Dolan Academy. As

such, on September 4, 2014, Miller requested another IEP meeting in the hope that I.M. could be

placed at Dolan, at the Districts expense. A meeting was scheduled for September 26, 2014.

On September 16, the District held a separate meeting, without Miller, for the purpose of

preparing yet another revised AIP. The District retained Margaret Brashers, a Board Certified

Behavioral Analyst to participate in the meeting. The new AIP provided for a liberal use of

aversive interventions and, like all of Coles prior drafts, completely eliminated all requirements

for Right Response training. Moreover, the plan stated that it was created at a meeting in which

Miller was in attendance. Miller did not attend the meeting and was unaware that it was being

held. Miller objected to the meeting and the resulting amended AIP.




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

73. Miller again reached out to the Board and advised of the September 16 meeting

held in her absence. Defendant board member Scott responded stating that the meeting date

reflected on the draft AIP was likely the result of an auto re-date function that overrode the date

of an old a document. Once again rejecting Millers plea for help, Scott stated: [T]here is no

place within policy, procedures or state and federal law for me to intervene in this process. I

have complete trust that district employees are performing their duties in accordance with district

and board policy. Scott forwarded the email and attachments to Hoover for confirmation and

follow up. Neither the Board nor Hoover took any further action on the matter. With respect to

Scotts theory that the September 16, 2014 date on the new AIP was the result of an auto re-

dated of an old document, no prior draft matching its contents has been found.

74. Just prior to the September 26, 2014 meeting, Cole provided Miller with a new

draft IEP and a new draft BIP, in addition to the previously provided and mysteriously created

AIP. The draft IEP was replete with errors and significant portions were copied from prior years.

Even then, many of the copied portions were taken from IEPs that predated the May 2013 IEP.

The Fine Motor goal is a verbatim copy of the goal as it appeared in 2011 - which goal was

mastered in 2012. The typing goal is 1.3 wpm despite the fact that I.M. was typing 3.1 wpm in

May 2012. Goals for adaptive, written expression and math were unchanged from the goals in

2011. I.M.s disability is identified as developmental delay as opposed to autism. The draft

further provides that I.M. will repeat third grade despite the Districts failure to follow any of

the procedures required (including notice to the parent) for repetition of a grade level.

75. Miller appeared for the September 26, 2014 IEP meeting with attorney Erica

Krikorian (Krikorian). Cole advised Miller that she could not have an attorney present without

providing advanced notice to the District. Cole further advised that if Krikorian remained, the




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

meeting would be cancelled. Miller elected to proceed with the meeting so as to avoid any

further delay. Because I.M.s IEP had expired in May 2014, at which time he was to be re-

evaluated, Miller signed a consent for a re-evaluation, though the specifics of the testing had yet

to be identified. Nothing further was accomplished and another meeting was scheduled for

October 20, 2014.

76. On October 1, Krikorian emailed Cole and asked to be included on future emails

from District staff to Miller. The next day, attorney Thompson emailed Krikorian stating that

she is to have no direct communication with the District and that all communication must be

directed to him. Krikorian agreed, though Thompson refused to instruct the District to refrain

from communicating directly with Miller. Krikorian proposed that the parties work together to

create a solution that centers on I.M.s safety. Remarkably, Thompson stated that he was

unaware of any claim that I.M. had been harmed. In an October 3, 2014 email, Thompson

stated:

I want to add, however, that I am not aware of the Millers having serious concerns

regarding Isaiahs safety with the placement proposed by the district. If you want to

provide me with the details of the Millers concerns, I will be happy to discuss them with

the District.

District Denies All Accommodations for Re-Evaluation

77. At the October 20, 2014 meeting, Miller requested that I.M. be placed at Dolan

Academy. Regarding the re-evaluation, Miller described I.M. fears and anxiety with regard to

District personnel requested that independent providers conduct all assessments. Miller further

agreed to provide the District with extensive testing completed at the UW Autism Center and

Childrens Hospital earlier in 2014, in the hope that District would not feel the need to duplicate




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

some of the testing. The District agreed to consider the assessments. At the conclusion of the

meeting, Cole asked the IEP team members to vote on whether the District should implement

the latest draft of the IEP. Based upon the outcome of the vote, Cole declared the new IEP, AIP

and BIP to be operative.

78. On October 21, 2014, Krikorian wrote Thompson and requested confirmation that

the District would make the requested re-evaluation accommodations so as to avoid an

exacerbation of I.M.s anxiety. Krikorian further requested that Thompson provide a list, by

October 27, of the specific testing that the District sought to conduct. Thompson did not respond

to Krikorians letter. During this time, Cole emailed Miller directly and requested that I.M.

submit to assessments by District personnel and at the District office. On October 29, Krikorian

emailed Thompson asking that he respond to her October 21 letter and requesting that he

recommend the requested accommodations, out of compassion for I.M. Two days later,

Thompson responded as follows: I will respond to the issues raised in your letter in due course.

79. On November 6, the District denied all requested accommodations and instructed

Miller to deliver I.M. to the District office for testing by District personnel. The District further

advised that Miller would not be permitted to remain in the room during the testing. Miller did

not deliver I.M. to the District office. In a prior written notice dated November 13, 2014, the

District stated that it was unable to complete the re-evaluation on the grounds that Miller refused

to respond to its requests for scheduling.

Due Process Proceeding

80. On October 30, 2014, Miller instituted a due process proceeding against the

District and a hearing was scheduled for December 15, 2014. Pursuant to WAC 392-172A-




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

05090(2) and 392-172A-05110(1), a final decision was required on or before January 13, 2014.

Miller felt that she was going to have an adjudicated review of these events.

81. The District responded with the same defenses set forth in opposition to the

citizens complaint, stating that Miller is discourteous, that her claims are a campaign to create

conflict and that all revisions to the AIP and BIP were made at Millers request.

82. The District requested that Miller participate in a resolution meeting pursuant to

WAC 392-172A-05090. The meeting was held on November 14 and Miller attended with

Krikorian and her co-counsel Brian Krikorian (B. Krikorian). Cole attended with District

Attorney Thompson. B. Krikorian raised the issue of the Districts failure to offer any

accommodations to protect I.M. in the re-evaluation process. This angered Thompson and he

responded by telling B. Krikorian to just shut up. This served to end the meeting.

83. In order to ensure that all efforts at resolution were exhausted, Krikorian

thereafter presented Thompson with a proposed resolution that provided for placement at Dolan

and a waiver of reimbursement of tuition incurred to date. The District rejected the offer and

responded with a counter offer that included a release of all civil claims. Krikorian asked the

District to present a counter-proposal that is limited to a resolution of the due process issues, and

does not include a release of civil claims. The District has refused and will not agree to any

settlement of the due process issues unless Miller agrees to release all claims asserted in this

action.

84. Since then, the District has obtained two continuances of the due process hearing

date, on the grounds that it needs additional time to file a motion for summary judgment and on

the grounds that an amended fact statement, prepared at the Districts request and in direct

response to its claim of lack of specificity, constituted an amended due process hearing request




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

necessitating a re-setting of the procedural clock. As of the date of this complaint, the due

process hearing is scheduled to commence on March 20, 2015, with a decision deadline of April

29 106 days after the expiration of the deadline set forth in WAC 392-172A-05090(2) and 392-

172A-05110(1). By the time of the decision deadline, I.M. will have missed almost two full

school years of a public education.

85. The conduct of Cole, Hart, Kinney and Dmochowsky was intentional, malicious

and/or in reckless and in callous disregard of I.M.s rights, safety and well being. As

Superintendent, Hoover had a duty to intervene upon notice of the Chain Lake violations and to

prevent the abuse at Salem Woods. Upon notice that Cole was refusing to honor the terms of

I.M.s IEP and was creating new aversive and behavioral plans in violation of the federal law,

Hoover had a duty to take all necessary action to stop her. Hoover failed and refused to take any

action with a deliberate and callous disregard of I.M.s rights, safety and well-being. As a result,

I.M. endured additional abuses at Salem Woods and has been deprived of a public education for

more than a year.

86. The District, the Board and the Individual Board Members were aware of the

conduct of Cole, Hoover, Hart, Kinney and Dmochowsky and the harm I.M. suffered as a result.

The Board was aware that the District was refusing to comply with I.M.s IEP and refusing to

comply with the OSPI order for remedial action. The acts and omissions alleged herein were

carried out pursuant to a policy, custom and/or practice of the District and the Board, including a

policy of inaction. The acts and omissions of the District and the Board constitute a deliberate

and callous indifference to clearly established federal and constitutional rights, of which all

defendants were aware.




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

87. The wrongful conduct alleged herein is rendered all the more reprehensible given

I.M.s mental and emotional vulnerabilities and given that the abuses were perpetrated by the

very people that I.M. is supposed to trust and in a setting that supposed to be safe.

88. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, and each of

them, I.M. has suffered physical, mental and emotional injuries including severe mental and

emotional distress, pain, suffering, anguish and humiliation. Plaintiffs have incurred medical

expenses in connection with the treatment of these injuries and will continue to incur such

expenses in future. I.M. has also incurred educational and related expenses that are the subject

of the pending due process administrative proceeding. To the extent the recovery sought in the

due process proceeding is denied or is awarded and unpaid, plaintiffs will amend this complaint

to include an appeal or enforcement of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of 42 USC 1983: The Fourteenth Amendment

(By I.M. Against All Defendants)

89. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations of

paragraphs 1 through 88 inclusive, as though set forth at length.

90. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that no

citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Section 1983 of

the Civil Rights Act prohibits any person, acting under the color of law, from depriving another

person of a federal or constitutional right.

91. The right to a public education is a constitutionally protected right. The IDEA

provides additional protections to children with disabilities by mandating that they receive a

free appropriate public education (FAPE), as set forth in the IEP that is specifically tailored

to the individual child. As such, an IEP does not set forth suggestions or guidelines for the




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

provision of educational services. Rather, it defines the FAPE to which the child is legally

entitled. The District has no authority to unilaterally amend or modify an IEP. If a dispute arises

and the parent and the District are unable to agree on a resolution, the matter must be resolved

with an administrative due process hearing. 20 USC 1415; Dowler v. Clover Park School

Dist., 172 Wn.2d 471, 479 (2011).

92. The Defendants, acting under color of law, and without due process, denied I.M.

his federally and constitutionally protected FAPE by failing and refusing to implement, honor

and enforce the May 2013 IEP, AIP and BIP.

93. The Defendants, acting under the color of law, further deprived I.M. of a FAPE

by violating the procedural safeguards in the IDEA including but not limited to:

a) Denying Miller meaningful participation in the IEP process.

b) Failing to institute due process proceedings when agreements could not be

reached and, instead, making unilateral decisions over Millers objection.

c) Providing Miller with a finite list of four pre-determined options for I.M.s

placement, without Millers participation or input.

d) Misrepresenting the Districts obligations under the IDEA for a continuum of

services, including those regarding private placement tuition, transportation and

alternative placements.

e) Failing to maintain an updated IEP by continuing to designate I.M.s disability

developmental delay as opposed to autism and by setting goals for skills already

mastered.




Fax: (425) 732-0115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

f) Failing to maintain accurate records, falsifying records, creating misleading

records and failing to fully document all aversive interventions and otherwise

denying Miller access to a complete educational record.

g) Failing to honor the January 3, 2014 OSPI decision and thereafter continuing

assert that an expanded aversive intervention plan governed I.M.s FAPE.

h) Engaging in delay tactics that served to deprive I.M. a timely decision in the

due process proceeding.

i) Conditioning the future provision of a FAPE on a release of all claims alleged

herein.

j) Misrepresenting to the ALJ in the due process proceeding t

Documents

Miller v Monroe School District Federal Complaint