Fitzpatrick v. Town of Falmouth, No. 05-97 (Me. Aug. 10, 2005)
he Maine Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that a school district did not violate a disabled, home-schooled student's right to use public accommodations under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) when it suspended him from using an elementary school's playground during recess periods until his parents agreed to a behavior assessment. The court also rejected that the parents' claim of education discrimination under the MHRA. J.R., who suffers from Asperger's Disorder Autism and is home-schooled, was barred from the playground at Plummer-Motz Elementary School after teachers and some students complained that he used offensive or threatening language and threw rocks. At the time, officials left the door open for J.R.'s return if his parents agreed to a behavior assessment. The parents denied the alleged incidents and sued in state court, arguing that school officials were discriminating against J.R. on the basis of his disability in violation of various federal and state laws. The trial court rejected the parents' claim of education discrimination under the MHRA, concluding that the gravamen of their complaint fell under special education laws and that the parents therefore should have exhausted administrative remedies before pursuing their claim in court. The trial court also rejected the parents' claim that school officials had discriminated against J.R. under MHRA's public accommodations provision, finding instead that J.R. "posed a direct threat to the health and safety of others" that his suspension from the playground was based not on his disability, but rather on the "legitimate need to obtain an assessment of the child and develop a plan for his safe and beneficial use of the facility." The supreme court affirmed, but upheld the decision on the public accommodations claim using a different rationale. Addressing the education discrimination claim first, the court rejected the parents' argument that their claim was not made under the special education statutes but was a legitimate MHRA claim that did not require exhaustion of administrative remedies. The supreme court concluded that the MHRA claim could not succeed because it was based entirely on J.R.'s status as a special education student; MHRA's education discrimination provision expressly states that it "shall not be construed to cover the rights of exceptional students to special education programs…." Turning to the public accommodations claim, the court noted that in interpreting the MHRA, it looks to federal case law interpreting very similar provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Based on ADA case law, the court found that school officials had a duty under the MHRA to "ascertain whether any modification to [school] policies, or whether providing any auxiliary services, will eliminate the significant risk that it has identified." The court cited
Doe v. Woodford County Board of Education, 213 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2000), a case in which a school district was found not to have discriminated under the ADA when it placed a student basketball player on "hold" until school officials could determine if his hemophilia and hepatitis B virus posed a direct threat to his teammates. Similarly, the supreme court concluded that J.R.'s removal was temporary and that the behavior assessment was necessary for school officials to fulfill their obligation to determine if J.R.'s behavior constituted a direct threat and if so, what modifications, if any, could eliminate the threat.
Fitzpatrick v. Town of Falmouth, No. 05-97 (Me. Aug. 10, 2005)
[Link to full opinion][
Editor's Note: For additional background information on the trial court's ruling, see below. COSA member Melissa A. Hewey of Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon in Portland, Maine, represented the defendants.]
[NSBA School Law pages on Fitzpatrick v. Town of Falmouth]