Law, Health Policy & Disability Center Bulletin Board: (Educ.) Special Education Caselaw

Abusive Teachers

Meers v. Medley, No. 2003-CA-001003-MR (Ky. Ct. App.
Oct. 29, 2004).

Meers and Rogers (Plaintiffs) were students with severe disabilities receiving special education services. They, allegedly, were physically and emotionally abused by their teacher, Debbie Medley. The plaintiffs sought relief under a variety of federal and state laws, but did not bring any claims under the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA). The court focused upon the issue of whether the plaintiffs were required to exhaust the administrative procedures of the IDEA before seeking judicial relief under state and federal laws.

Adopting the recent reasoning of the federal district court in Stutts v. Eastern Kentucky University, 307 F.Supp.2d 853, 857–58 (E.D. Ky. 2004), the court determined that when the wrongs complained of are “outside the scope of IDEA [because] they are not related to the way that school provides education,” the plaintiff is not required to exhaust IDEA’s administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief on other state and federal claims. The court concluded that “allegations relating to physical assault or abuse are deemed as claims outside the scope of the IDEA and are not subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement.”

Available on Lexis: 2004 Ky. App. LEXIS 320
Available on Westlaw: 2004 WL 2415089

Flores v. Sch. Bd. of DeSoto Parish, No. 03-30967 (5th Cir. Nov. 16, 2004)

Kevin Flores (Plaintiff) was serving detention when a teacher, Clinton Wysinger, accused him of “trying to skip” his punishment. The confrontation escalated until Wysinger allegedly physically threatened and assaulted Kevin. The plaintiff raised claims that Wysinger used excessive force and violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to freedom from illegal seizure and substantive due process.

Flores argued that Wysinger’s actions were beyond corporal punishment, or the “furtherance of any pedagogical purpose, but . . . inflicted maliciously with intent to cause harm solely because Kevin had questioned the order to eat his lunch in the detention room.” The court examined the facts and characterized Wysinger’s actions as corporal punishment, which the U.S. Supreme Court has determined is constitutional.

Flores further argued that he should not be required to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA because doing so “would have been inadequate and futile.” The court, however, did not accept this argument and stated that Flores had not provided adequate support for such a finding.

Available on Lexis: 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 23955
Available on Westlaw: 2004 WL 2604225

Post Extras