A.Y. v. St. Louis Public Schools, No. 4:14-cv-1415 (E.D. Mo). A young girl with autism who moved into St. Louis City was placed by SLPS in a regular education class without special education services. She was physically and sexually abused by other students in her class. Eventually the student was hospitalized after she made multiple suicide attempts. When the student began attending a homebound program, SLPS failed to modify the student’ IEP to address new diagnoses of depression and PTSD and failed provide appropriate services in the homebound program. We successfully represented the parent in a due process hearing. Among other things, the Commissioner found that bullying at school resulted in a denial of a free appropriate public education. Placement for the student was ordered at Great Circle/Edgewood Children Center. When the parent sued for reimbursement of attorney’s fees, SLPS filed a counterclaim appealing the Commissioner’s order, then held a new IEP meeting and attempted to change the student’s placement from Edgewood back to SLPS. We then filed a new due process hearing request to maintain the student’s stay put placement at Edgewood. Thereafter the parties reached a confidential settlement.

C.P. and O.P. v. Board of Educ., Jacksonville Sch. Dist. No. 117. #117 v. C.P and O.P., et al., No. 15-cv-03228 (C.D.Ill). We successfully represented a student with autism in a due process hearing. The student developed severe aggressive and self-injurious behaviors and PTSD at school because of the district’s improper disciplinary procedures and failure to regularly consult with a BCBA. The district then ignored homebound recommendations of the student’s pediatrician, psychiatrist, psychologist and others. Instead the district proposed to place the student at Hope Institute but without the accommodations for transportation that were needed because of the student’s urological condition requiring her to use the bathroom as often as every 20 minutes.. After a six-day hearing, the impartial hearing officer ordered that the student’s home ABA program be maintained for at least six months at a cost of more than $13,000 per month, that the school district reimburse the parents for more than $10,000 in expenses incurred for the home ABA program, and that the school district then develop an appropriate transition plan for the student’s return to school. The district filed its appeal in the U. S. District Court in August 2015 and sought a preliminary injunction to avoid making the foregoing payments. The district’s motion was recently denied. The district also lost its attempt to keep the court’s decision denying the preliminary injunction under seal. Now all payments to the parents have been made, the student’s stay-put status remains in the home ABA program, briefing in the case will conclude in August 2016, and a decision is expected shortly thereafter.

Student v. Pikeland CUSD 10, 2013-0358. Our client, a bi-racial African-American/Caucasian young man, was repeatedly bullied in school on account of his race, including racial name calling, racial epithets written on his locker, and an incident of physical hazing in the boys locker room. These incidents of harassment exacerbated the the student’s symptoms of depression and anxiety and resulted in suicidal and homicidal ideations. Despite many signs of an emotional disturbance–including prior hospitalizations, reports of auditory hallucinations, and frequent contact with mental health providers–the school district’s only educational diagnoses was learning disabled. The district provided no services or goals to adequately address the student’s social and emotional issues. Following a four day hearing, the Impartial Hearing Officer found that the district had denied the student FAPE by failing to assess the student and identify all of his disabling conditions, and by failing to create individualized and measurable goals to address his anxiety and depression. The Impartial Hearing Officer ordered all of the relief requested by our client, including counseling and tutoring services.

Doe v. Sobeck, No. 3:12-cv-01222-JPG-DGW (S.D. Ill. 2012). Our client, a young woman with developmental disabilities, was raped by another participant in a developmental training (“DT”) program in West Frankfort, Illinois. On her behalf, her parents are suing the The H Group BBT, Inc., and two of its employees for compensatory and punitive damages. Her claims are based on Title IX, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Illinois state tort law.

Edwardsville Special Education Placements, (Illinois State Board of Education Due Process Hearings). Edwardsville School District 7 recently instituted a blanket policy of removing students with autism and emotional or behavioral disabilities from private placements (such as at Giant Steps or Logos School) and returning them to the District, even where the evidence indicates the student requires the services of a private placement to receive a free, appropriate, public education. Our firm has represented several families in Edwardsville, Illinois, who each filed due process hearing requests against the Edwardsville School District. In many cases, the disputes center around the removal of a student from his or her private placement. Our firm has negotiated a series of favorable settlements on behalf of our clients which preserved the private placements and, in some cases, resulted in reimbursement of attorney’s fees. We also recently represented parents in a four-day due process hearing in which the hearing officer ordered the return of a student to a private placement for not less than 18 months.

Mapaville Litigation (E.D. Mo. 2010). Our clients are parents of students with severe disabilities who attended Mapaville State School in Festus, Mo. They discovered abusive treatment of their children at Mapaville after secretly recording several classes. The audiotapes revealed verbal and physical abuse of children, teachers and aides participating in Jazzercize activates while children were ignored, students being put down for naps for lengthy periods each day, and teachers and therapists falsifying records of services to students, among other things. Six families file due process hearing requests; five lost, one family obtained partial relief, and one family (represented by our firm) was successful. Then our firm agreed to handle all these cases on appeal in the U.S. District Court. Eventually Mapaville and the Missouri Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education agreed to settlements in each case which provided for a wide range of compensatory services over a three-year period, including independent augmentative communication evaluations, unannounced monitoring of Mapaville, and payments to our clients ranging from $10,000.00 to $200,000.00. The last Mapaville case was concluded in January 2013.

N.L., et al., v. Special School District of St. Louis County (Nos. 10-1894 and 10-2008, 8th cir. 2010), was an appeal of a special education due process hearing decision. Our clients are parents of N.L., an adoptee with reactive attachment disorder (RAD). The Special School District (SSD) placed N.L. in at least 13 separate placements with over 100 different service providers prior to third grade. Eventually SSD placed N.L. at Edgewood Children’s Center, a day program for students with severe behavioral problems. Our clients enrolled their son at Edgewood for six weeks, then removed him and placed him in private school upon the recommendation of his psychiatrist. The hearing panel found that the school district’s placement of N.L. at Edgewood was not in the least restrictive environment and that his former SSD placement violated his right to a free appropriate public education. The hearing panel ordered substantial compensatory services but denied the parents’ claim for private school tuition reimbursement. Both parties then appealed. The hearing panel’s decision was affirmed by the U.S. District Court, and both parties appealed again. While the case was pending in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the parties reached a settlement involving payment to our clients of $105,000.00.

U.S. et al. v. Wallschlaeger, 3:14-cv-00129-SMY (S.D. Ill.). We represented tenants of a trailer park in Effingham, Illinois who were victims of racial discrimination. Our client, a resident of the trailer park, became disabled and invited his niece to move in and assist him with activities of daily living. When she invited her African American boyfriend to live with them, the manager of the mobile home park refused to allow him on the lease. Racial epithets and threats were then directed to the young man. No African Americans had ever lived in the trailer park before. Eventually all three clients had to move from the park. The clients contacted HOPE Fair Housing Center in Chicago, which referred the case to the U.S. Department of Justice. Caucasian and African American testers then visited the park and inquired about possible residency: the Caucasian testers were immediately offered a lease, while the African American testers were discouraged from applying. The U. S. Dept. of Justice filed suit against the owner of the trailer park as well as the managers, and our clients intervened in the case. After lengthy pretrial discovery, the case was eventually settled. Pursuant to a consent decree, our clients were received damages in the amount of $217,500, the landlord paid a civil penalty of $50,000, and the landlord agreed to establishment of nondiscriminatory application process and to Fair Housing training.

Joan Hoyt v. Law School Admission Council (E.D. Mo. 2013). Together with Jo Anne Simon, a Brooklyn, N.Y attorney who specializes in disability law, our office represents an individual who was denied reasonable testing accommodations to address her anxiety disorder and learning disabilities when taking the LSAT. A complaint for injunctive relief was filed on September 4, 2013.

EEOC and Pamela Perry v. Comprehensive Behavioral Health Ctr. of St. Clair County, Inc., (S.D. Ill. 2012). Our firm recently filed a Complaint in Intervention on behalf of Pamela Perry in an EEOC employment discrimination case in federal court in East St. Louis. Our client has multiple sclerosis. Ms. Perry was a mental health counselor with 23 yrs. of experience at the Center but was discharged after her employer denied her accommodations requests. She asked for a quiet work area, a dictation program (like Dragon Naturally Speaking) so she could dictate her case notes rather than handwrite them, and the right to wear tennis shoes at work instead of painful dress shoes. All of her requests were denied. She was replaced by a person with less experience who was a personal acquaintance of the Center’s director. Our client seeks reinstatement, back pay, and damages. The EEOC also seeks policy changes at the Center to require compliance with the ADA. No. 3:12-cv-01031-WDS-SCW.

Alexander v. Baxton, et al. (S.D. Ill. 2012). Alexander settled her federal ADA and Section 504 claims against the Village of Alorton, Illinois, its police chief, and four police officers for the sum of $110,000.00. Alexander has transverse myelitis and very limited feeling in her legs. She stands and ambulates with leg and arm braces. In August 2011 she was falsely arrested after a disturbance at the Greystone Apartments housing project in Alorton, then transported to the Village’s inaccessible police station. Despite the accessibility requirements imposed by the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Village Board inexplicably decided in 2005 to move the police station down a flight of stairs from its City Hall. Alexander was booked downstairs, then forced to walk back up to the Village’s jail holding cell, which remained at street level; on multiple occasions she had to walk up and downstairs without assistance and while handcuffed behind her back. She was confined overnight in a filthy jail holding cell, denied her pain medication, could not stand or move around the cell without her braces, and could not use the inaccessible toilet, sink or drinking fountain. Eventually she was released without charges. All records of Alexander’s police interrogation plus video footage of Ms. Alexander moving inside and outside the police station were allegedly “lost.” After filing her lawsuit, Ms. Alexander agreed to participate in the U. S. District Court’s mediation program, and her case was finally settled in September 2012. No. 3:12-cv-00042-MJR-SCW.

Frazer et al. v. City of East St. Louis et al. (S.D. Ill. 2011). In July 2011, a jury returned a verdict for our clients, two former members of the East St. Louis Fire and Police Board of Commissioners who were removed from their positions after opposing racial discrimination in the hiring of police officers in East St. Louis. The jury awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of what the plaintiffs sought. No. 3:09-cv-802-JPG-SCW.

Hiltibran v. Levy (W.D. Mo. 2010). This suit, brought on behalf of MO Healthnet (Missouri Medicaid) recipients, challenges the State’s failure to provide medically necessary incontinence supplies to individuals over twenty years in age. On December 27, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Nanette K. Laughrey granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The trial on the merits is now scheduled for Sept. 26, 2011. Our clients are all over twenty years of age and suffer from a range of disabilities. They all live in their own homes or with family members and their doctors have determined that adult diapers are medically necessary to prevent skin breakdowns and infections, which can lead to other life threatening conditions. Without these products, our clients are likely to go into nursing homes, where ironically the adult diapers are covered by Medicaid. Nursing home care costs the state about $4,000 per month. The adult diapers for our clients cost no more than a few hundred dollars.Our complaint alleged violations of the federal Medicaid law, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Judge Laughrey granted a preliminary injunction and evenutally summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. This case is being brought by the Law Offices of Thomas E. Kennedy, III, L.C., Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, and the Saint Louis University Legal Clinic. No. 2:10-cv-4185-NKL.

Tarvin, et al., v. Board of Educ., East St. Louis Sch. Dist. No. 189, et al., (S.D. Ill. 2009). Our clients are two precinct committeemen and a local union official who were employed by the school district as carpentry supervisor, and in-house detention coordinator and school security coordinator. They were demoted and suffered pay decreases because they supported candidates for school board other than those endorsed by the Democratic Party. This First Amendment retaliation case sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. After the District Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the case was settled. No. 3:09-cv-655-GPM-CJP.

Bouas v. Board of Educ., Mascoutah Comm. U. Sch. Dist., Charge No. 19, (Illinois Human Rights Commission 2008) is an employment discrimination case against a school district which initially hired our client, a former police officer, then fired him from his campus monitor job when it learned that he received disability benefits. Our client sought reimbursement, back pay and reinstatement to the job. The case settled. Charge No. 560-2008-02929.

In re G.P.; In re F.W.; In re S.G, Administrative Hearings Unit, Illinois Dep’t of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) (2012). Our firm recently represented three men who were each wrongfully “indicated” for abuse and neglect of children by DCFS caseworkers. At each of the three administrative hearings, lawyers at our firm introduced witnesses who supported our clients, including expert witnesses, as well as documentary evidence which showed that our clients did not abuse the children of concern. In all these cases, the charges against our clients were expunged by the Hearings Officer after an evidentiary hearing and these decisions were upheld by the Director of DCFS.

In the Interest of R.M., (5th Dist. Ct. App. 2009). Our clients are foster parents who had custody of a 2-yr. old child with disabilities since birth. The Illinois Dep’t. of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”) sought to change the child’s custody to a paternal grandmother after DNA tests revealed the father’s identity, even though the father is accused of child sexual abuse. With our help, our clients intervened in the Juvenile Court case, then prevailed in a DCFS administrative hearing, where the hearing officer determined that the DCFS decision was not consistent with the child’s need for safety and reversed the decision of DCFS. The grandmother then filed for administrative review in Juvenile Court, which was erroneously granted. The Associate Circuit Judge ordered custody to the grandmother and cut off visitation to our clients. We then successfully appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which ruled – – in favor of our clients- – that the Juvenile Court wrongly permitted the grandparent to circumvent the Illinois Administrative Review Act by filing her untimely appeal in the pending Juvenile Court proceeding. No. 05-09-0373.

Disability Advocacy / Disability Benefits Cases

In re M.F. (Administrative Hearings Unit, Mo. Dept. of Mental Health) We are currently representing a young woman with multiple disabilities, including autism and blindness. The Department of Mental Health is denying her ongoing orientation and mobility services and other blindness services she needs due to a change in the way they categorize their services under the applicable Medicaid Waiver Program.

Hiltibran v. Levy (W.D. Mo. 2010). This suit, brought on behalf of MO Healthnet (Missouri Medicaid) recipients, challenges the State’s failure to provide medically necessary incontinence supplies to individuals over twenty years in age. Read more about Hilitibran v. Levy on our Civil Rights and Constitutional Law page.

Gerken v. Sherman, (W.D. Mo. App. 2009), is a class action seeking payment to our clients of funds wrongfully diverted from the Blind Pension Fund. The Court of Appeals recently decided that the state’s method of calculating annual increases to our clients’ Blind Pension payments was incorrect. A special master was appointed to advise the trial court about appropriate Blind Pension payments to 3,300 class members, including payments for Pension benefits wrongfully withheld. Our clients then obtained different counsel. The master’s recommendation, which was adopted by the trial court, was that the plaintiffs were entitled to an award of $30 million dollars, including $19 million in unpaid benefits and $11 million in interest. The case is on appeal. 276 S.W. 3d 844.