School Bd. Responds to Special Ed. Complaint Filed in US Court

Two plaintiffs, through their parents, filed a complaint on October 17, 2024, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Southern Division of London, against the Board of Education of McCreary County, Brian Crawford, Superintendent McCreary County Schools in his individual capacity, and Samuel Marple, Principal McCreary Middle School in his individual capacity.  The action was taken under the Individuals with Disabilities Act as amended, Americans with Disabilities Act 42, and KRS 344.130.

According to the complaint, both plaintiffs are identified as children with disabilities, covered by the safeguards of IDEAA 504, ADA, and KRS 344.130.  The Complaint alleges the Respondent (McCreary County Board of Education) is a recipient of Federal Funds and is required to provide appropriate educational services to children with disabilities from the age of 3 to 21 and is a place of public accommodation that cannot discriminate in providing all services based on disability.  The complaint further alleges that as superintendent, Defendant Crawford is to ensure compliance with both state and federal laws protecting children with disabilities from disparate treatment solely due to their disability.  The complaint also asserts that, as principal, Defendant Marple is responsible for compliance with state and federal law relevant to the rights of children with disabilities attending McCreary Middle School.

The complaint states the two plaintiffs were students with disabilities at McCreary Middle School when their educational rights were violated.  It alleges the Defendant Board, through Principal Marple, has established a pattern and practice of singling out children with disabilities attending McCreary Middle School for disparate treatment, resulting in violation of the Plaintiffs’ educational rights.

Specifically, the complaint contends that Principal Marple violated the IDEAA by changing the placement of one of the plaintiffs to a more restrictive environment without convening an Admission and Release Committee (ARC) meeting with the parent present.  When the plaintiff’s mother questioned the change of placement, the complaint alleges Marple replied that he would get to choose where the plaintiff attended school.  The complaint further alleges that the plaintiff’s bullying was not addressed, resulting in the denial of an appropriate education.  The complaint also alleges the same plaintiff was denied equal access to non-disabled children by separating the plaintiff into an alternative program.

The second plaintiff in the complaint alleges he/she was singled out by Marple for disparate treatment due to a disability and was bullied while at McCreary Middle School.  The parent of the plaintiff alleges that concerns about the bullying of the student were brought to the attention of the Middle School Administration, who dismissed the concerns with the comment, “Boys will be boys.”

The complaint further contends Marple told the parent that the plaintiff was not disabled enough and that the child would have to have a feeding tube and require the use of diapers before receiving the services of an aide.

Other allegations in the complaint include that a child with a disability’s desk was placed in the boys’ lavatory, where the child received his educational services during the day, and that Principal Marple placed an identified child with a disability on homebound services at a time when the child’s family was homeless, without convening an ARC meeting.

 The complaint alleges the Respondent Board has established a pattern and practice of ignoring the procedural protections afforded to those with disabilities enrolled in McCreary schools, resulting in emotional harm and educational neglect to the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated children with disabilities attending McCreary Middle School.

In their November 21, 2024, response to the complaint, the Board of Education of McCreary County, Superintendent Brian Crawford, and Principal Samuel Marple, through their counsel, filed their response, answering the Plaintiffs’ complaint and demanding its dismissal.

The Defendants’ Response denies allegations and offers multiple defenses.  The Response states the applicable statute of limitations bars the Plaintiffs’ Complaint and that the Plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages if there were any.  The Response also presents a defense that the Plaintiffs’ claims for recovery should be barred to the extent they are attributable, in whole or in part, to pre-existing conditions or collateral issues or subsequent conditions that the Defendants did not create or are not otherwise responsible for.  The Defendants also affirmatively pled official immunity as a complete bar to the complaint, maintaining they acted in good faith and without any ill motive.

The submission of the initial disclosure, including individuals likely to have discoverable information and potential documents, for this case (6:24-CV-151-KKC) has begun.