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.
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.
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.
N.L., et al., v. Special School District of St. Louis County (Nos. 10-1894 and 10-2008, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 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.
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 tapes revealed verbal and physical abuse of children, teachers and aides participating in Jazzercize activities 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 filed due process hearing requests; five lost and one family obtained partial relief. Then our firm agreed to handle these cases in U. S. District Court. Mapaville and the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) agreed to settlements in five cases, providing for a range of compensatory services over a three-year period including independent augmentative communication evaluations, unannounced monitoring of Mapaville by a DESE representative, and payments to families ranging from $10,000 to $100,000. One case against Mapaville and DESE is pending.
In the Interest of R.M., No. 05-09-0373 (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.
Gerken v. Sherman, 276 S.W. 3d 844 (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.
Bouas v. Board of Educ., Mascoutah Comm. U. Sch. Dist., Charge No. 19, Charge No. 560-2008-02929 (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.
Thomas Watts v. Village of Freeburg, Illinois, No. 08-cv-862-DRH (S.D. Ill. 2008) is an action in the Southern District of Illinois on behalf of a retired police officer who never received overtime pay for feeding, bathing, grooming and caring for Sarah, a K-9 police dog. The lawsuit sought overtime pay, liquidated damages and attorney’s fees. The case was settled.