THE FACTS
This website is about more than one family's case. More than 20 families and former teachers have reached out with their willingness to testify publicly about the ongoing discrimination at MMS. Many of their stories are shared on this website. Below are the facts that dispute the statements made in Monica's email to MMS Parents.
The first complaint that was filed was "dismissed without prejudice" or in layman terms, revise and resubmit. The judge wanted specific monetary damages to be shown. AND, the family needed to state that they would be willing to return their child to MMS in the future to have standing in the case. The case was refiled and accepted.
The minor part of the second filed complaint that was dismissed had only to do with whether the family could prove that the school intentionally inflicted emotional damage or distress. "'Plaintiffs need to allege more than the conclusory assertion that Van Aken “intentionally infl[i]cted emotional distress upon Plaintiff J.L.'"
What Monica fails to mention was that THEIR OWN MOTION TO DISMISS WAS DENIED! See below for what the details of that denial were (direct quotes from the federal court order denying motion to dismiss):
Under both statutes, “[a]n individual is ‘disabled’ if he has (1) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of the major life activities; (2) a record of such an impairment; or (3) if he is regarded as having such an impairment.” The third amended complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to support inferences under prongs (1) and (3) applicable to both statutes. Accordingly, MMS’s request for dismissal of Counts I–IV will be denied.
To suggest, as MMS does, that “Plaintiffs allege nothing to show J.L. has a disability under the ADA,” (ECF No. 31 at 15), is obviously contrary to the record. The facts alleged in the third amended complaint, taken as true, plausibly establish that J.L. has a qualifying disability under the ADA and Section 504.
MMS spends a considerable portion of its briefing asserting that it cannot be held liable because Plaintiffs “failed to provide a proper diagnosis of an alleged disability and request for specific accommodation prior to J.L.’s dismissal.” (ECF No. 31 at 5, 15.) But Plaintiffs allege that MMS’s own conduct caused the lack of notice it now complains about. When MMS reported behavioral issues to [Plaintiffs], they promptly scheduled a neurological examination, even using [Plaintiff's] connections to jump the waiting list. (ECF No. 29-4 at 2–3.) MMS had notice of this scheduled exam, had itself reported behavioral issues from J.L. that were apparently serious enough to warrant dismissal, was informed by Plaintiffs’ counsel that Plaintiffs were asserting their rights under the ADA, and were presented with and denied a list of reasonable accommodations by [Plaintiffs]., all before making the ultimate decision to dismiss J.L. These allegations are sufficient for the Court to infer that MMS had adequate notice of J.L.’s disability prior to his dismissal from MMS.
While the Court is not required to accept Plaintiffs’ legal conclusion that Van Aken was treating J.L. as if he had a disability, it is required to credit their well-pleaded factual allegations. And those allegations create a plausible inference that Van Aken regarded J.L. as having a mental impairment (ADHD) and dismissed him from MMS because of his perceived impairment.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 30, is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Plaintiffs may proceed on their claims for relief under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Plaintiffs’ claim for Emotional Distress is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Failing to make headway? The case just started and the family has been deposing teachers and other stakeholders according to the agreed upon schedule. However, the case was indeed delayed by having to respond to two Motions to Dismiss, which were ultimately denied.
Notably, Monica failed to include the open Federal DOJ investigation in her letter, similar to the case that was brought against the school under her leadership in 2014.
Do you still believe her? The facts will definitely continue to come out.