NLDline
Subj: THE SPECIAL ED ADVOCATE,
DECEMBER 17, 1999 (V. 2, NO. 33)
Date: 12/17/99 1:40:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: pwright@wrightslaw.com (Pam and Pete Wright)
Sender: owner-special-ed-advocate@wrightslaw.com
To: special-ed-advocate@wrightslaw.com
==================
The Special Ed Advocate
The Online Newsletter About
Special Education and the Law
December 17, 1999 Vol. II, No. 33
===================
1. COMPLAINT: SHAWN WITTE V CLARK COUNTY (NV) SCHOOLS
2. ANOTHER NEVADA SCHOOL BRUTALITY CASE
3. THE RIGHT TO AN "IMPARTIAL DUE PROCESS HEARING"
4. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT WITTE CASE
5. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
6. CONTACT INFORMATION
===========
1. COMPLAINT: SHAWN WITTE V CLARK COUNTY (NV) SCHOOLS
On December 3, 1999, we sent an ALERT about the new Ninth Circuit decision in the school
brutality case, Witte v. Clark County (NV) Schools.
http://www.wrightslaw.com//news/1999/news_Alert_Witte_99_1203.html
Sara Winter, attorney for the child, provided us with a copy of the Complaint and Jury
Demand which begins:
"This is a suit for damages arising out of practices of excessive corporal punishment
and abuse on students with disabilities in Variety School, a completely segregated public
school within the Clark County School District for children with disabilities. Such
practices of physical pain and physical restraint are intentionally and deliberately
inflicted on students with disabilities and are in violation of Plaintiff’s
constitutional right to be free from restraint and the infliction of pain while attending
public school."
You can download the Complaint from the Wrightslaw Law Library in pdf:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/pleadings/complaint_witte_clark_NV.pdf
and html: http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/pleadings/complaint_witte_clarkco_NV_.html
You can get the Ninth Circuit's decision in the Wrightslaw Law Library
in pdf:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/case_Witte_ClarkCo_9th_991202.pdf
and html:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/case_Witte_ClarkCo_9th_991202.htm
=================
2. ANOTHER SCHOOL BRUTALITY CASE
On December 7, 1999, we published a newsletter that included information about the ongoing
use "aversive behavior techniques" on disabled children in Clark County Schools.
http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/nwltr/1999/nl_99_1207.html
Five days later, we received a letter from an attorney about another Nevada school
brutality case. As you will see, this new abuse case had an unusual twist:
"I recently worked a case involving substantially similar issues, including civil
rights violations, abuse/battery and restraint, initiated in September of 1999."
"The hearing officer appointed by the NDOE is Beverly Minnear, Principal in the
"Witte v. Clark County" case. In October, two days after oral arguments before
the Ninth, we requested that she recuse herself from the case."
"She refused."
"We made the initial request for recusal to the DOE, then followed up with a request
directly to Ms. Minnear herself. You'll need to verify this independently, of course. This
case is currently in process and has been referred and accepted by legal counsel in
California."
Wrightslaw contacted the Nevada Department of Education and requested a list of Nevada
hearing officers. According to the list that was faxed to us, the principal who is a
Defendant in this case is a Hearing Officer
for the state of Nevada.
============
3. THE RIGHT TO AN "IMPARTIAL DUE PROCESS HEARING"
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act includes "procedural safeguards"
that are designed to protect the rights of disabled children and their parents (Section
1415). These safeguards include the opportunity to examine the child's records, to have
advance notice before any significant actions are taken, the right to pursue mediation
and litigation, the right to view exhibits and to know the names of witnesses in advance
of a hearing, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the right to a free
hearing. (Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, page 67)
The statute provides for a proceeding before an impartial hearing officer in matters duct
One procedural safeguard is the right to have special education disputes resolved by an
"Impartial Due Process Hearing." (20 U.S.C. 1415(f))
"A hearing conducted pursuant to paragraph (1) may not be conducted by an employee of
the State educational agency or the local educational agency involved in the education or
care of the child. (20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(3))
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/code_regs/20USC1415.html
As yet, there has been no trial in this case. Yet, it is difficult to understand how the
Nevada Department of Education could select the defendant in a child abuse - school
brutality case to act as an "impartial hearing officer" in similar special
education cases.
=============
4. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WITTE CASE
After the December 3 Alert, many people wrote in with questions. Here are a few questions
and answers from Wrightslaw.
ELAINE WROTE:
"I am curious--how much was this family awarded in this case? Also, were there ever
any criminal charges pursued against this abusive faculty?
FROM WRIGHTSLAW:
As yet, there has been no trial. (See Complaint and Jury Demand uploaded in the Law
Library). Until the Ninth Circuit's ruling in this case, courts have held that parents
must "exhaust administrative remedies" before they can bring a case to court.
This means that if a disabled child who receives special education was abused by a school
employee, the parents had to request an impartial due process hearing. If the due process
hearing was conducted at the local level, the losing party could appeal to the State
Education Agency (SEA). The SEA would appoint an independent Review Officer who would
issue a decision. The losing party could then appeal to state or federal court. (In states
that use a "one tier system," the due process hearing decision could be appealed
to court.)
If a non-disabled child was abused by a school employee, the child's parents could go
directly to court.
No, it doesn't make sense!
==========
SHERRY WROTE:
I appreciate your time and energy in doing this research on Clark County. How can parents
search for public documents that seem to be buried or otherwise non-existent?
FROM WRIGHTSLAW:
Our research began at the American Journalism Review site at
http://ajr.newslink.org/
The AJR site includes a Newspapers link at
http://ajr.newslink.org/news.html
At this site, you can search for newspapers by state and city. At the AJR site, we learned
that Las Vegas has two daily newspapers, The Review Journal and the Sun.
Within an hour, we found most of the information that we included in the article
http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/1999/news_update_Witte_ClarkCo_991207.html
========
AN ATTORNEY FROM WASHINGTON DC WROTE:
I specialize in civil and criminal litigation, but I also handle some special education
matters on behalf of disabled children and their parents.
I was shocked and horrified by Shawn's story and applaud you for sharing it with your
Special Ed Advocate readers. I would, however, like to point out that your article is
probably a bit misleading to your non-lawyer readers.
In the beginning, you introduce the facts of the case with phrases such as "According
to the pleadings" and "The court pleadings report." In its opinion, the
Ninth Circuit states "Because the district court dismissed the action on the ground
that Plaintiff's complaint failed to allege a basis for federal subject-matter
jurisdiction, we take the facts pleaded in the complaint as true."
I would hate to think that there are people out there who think that after a trial the
federal courts handling this matter concluded that all of the facts alleged in the
plaintiff's complaint were true (they might very well be true, but that is not what the
cases say).
The reason I am writing is because I think The Special Ed Advocate and Wrightslaw.com are
top notch, and that the work you do is so vital and appreciated by so many people. Thanks
for all of your efforts.
PETE RESPONDED:
Thanks for your comments. After we receive and upload the complaint, I will use this as an
opportunity to talk about an appellate court taking the facts as they are pled, without
regard to what later trial evidence may be, and also about this case being an example of
how courts reverse themselves, by distinguishing the facts from an earlier decision. This
case is a good example of how to plead a case and sidestep a minefield.
To read Pete's discussion of these issues, go to
http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/Pete_KeyIssues_Witte_991216.html
=============
5. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
The Special Ed Advocate is a free online newsletter about special education legal issues,
cases, tactics and strategy, effective educational methods, and Internet links.
As a subscriber to The Special Ed Advocate, you will receive announcements and
"alerts" about new cases and other events. Back issues of The Special Ed
Advocate are in the Newsletter Archives at our web site -
http://www.wrightslaw.com/main_newsletter_archives.htm
To subscribe to The Special Ed Advocate, go to
http://www.wrightslaw.com/approve.htm
To unsubscribe to The Special Ed Advocate, send an email to
majordomo@wrightslaw.com
In the beginning of your message, insert the following words exactly,
with hyphens, lowercase
unsubscribe special-ed-advocate
===========
6. CONTACT INFORMATION
Pete and Pam Wright
c/o The Special Ed Advocate
P. O. Box 1008
Deltaville, VA 23043
Phone: 804-257-0857
Website: http://www.wrightslaw.com
Email: webmaster@wrightslaw.com
The resources at this website are copyrighted by the authors. They may be used for
non-commercial purposes only. They may not be redistributed for commercial purposes
without the express written consent of Peter W.
D. Wright.
It is not necessary to obtain our consent to link to our website or copy, print and
distribute our articles and newsletters for nonprofit purposes so long as the material is
reproduced in its entirety and credit is given to Pete and Pam Wright and
"wrightslaw" including the URL -
http://www.wrightslaw.com
Copyright 1999, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved.
END