Wrightslaw l No Child Left Behind l IDEA 2004 l Fetaweb l Yellow Pages for Kids l Harbor House Law Press

 Home > Main Law Library > Caselaw Library > Doe v. Withers


The Special Ed Advocate
It's Unique ... and Free!

Enter your email address below:

 

2014 - 2015 Training Programs

Oct 30 - Phoenix, AZ

Nov. 1 - Grand Rapids, MI

Nov 6 - McAllen, TX

Nov 18 - DesMoines, IA

Nov 21 - Temecula, CA

Dec 4 - OKC, OK

Full Schedule

Be a Hero ...

 Jason at Ft. Benning
... to a Hero
Learn more

Wrightslaw

Home
Topics from A-Z
Free Newsletter
Seminars & Training
Consultations
Yellow Pages for Kids
Press Room
FAQs
Sitemap

Books & Training

Wrightslaw Books & DVDs
Wrightslaw Storesecure store lock
  Advocate's Store
  Student Bookstore
  Exam Copies
Training Center
Bulk Discounts
New! Military Discounts
Mail & Fax Orders

Advocacy Library

Articles
Doing Your Homework
Ask the Advocate
FAQs
Newsletter Archives
Summer School Series
Success Stories
Tips

Law Library

Articles
Caselaw
IDEA 2004
No Child Left Behind
McKinney-Vento Homeless
FERPA
Section 504
Fed Court Complaints

Topics

Advocacy
ADD/ADHD
Allergy/Anaphylaxis
Assistive Technology
Autism Spectrum
Behavior & Discipline
Bullying
College/Continuing Ed
Damages
Discrimination
Due Process
Early Intervention (Part C)
Eligibility
ESY
Evaluations
FAPE
Flyers
Future Planning
Harassment
High-Stakes Tests
Homeless Children
IDEA 2004
Identification & Child Find
IEPs
ISEA
Juvenile Justice
Law School & Clinics
Letters & Paper Trails
LRE/Inclusion
Mediation
Military / DOD
No Child Left Behind
NCLB Directories
NCLB Law & Regs
Parental Protections
PE and Adapted PE
Privacy & Records
Procedural Safeguards
Progress Monitoring
Reading
Related Services
Research Based Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
Restraints/Abuse
Retention
Retaliation
School Report Cards
Section 504
Self-Advocacy
Teachers & Principals
Transition
Twice Exceptional (2e)
VA Special Education

Resources & Directories

Advocate's Bookstore
Advocacy Resources
Directories
  Disability Groups
  International
  State DOEs
  State PTIs
Free Flyers
Free Pubs
Free Newsletters
Legal & Advocacy
Glossaries
   Legal Terms
   Assessment Terms
Best School Websites

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TAYLOR COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA

 

JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, individually, and as next friends of their handicapped minor son,
D. D.,
 
Plaintiffs,
 
 vs.
 
MICHAEL WITHERS, individually, and in his capacity as a teacher at Grafton High School; GREG CARTWRIGHT, individually, and in his capacity as a teacher at Grafton High School; WENDELL TEETS, individually, and in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools of Taylor County; and the TAYLOR COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a public corporation,
 
Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-C-92



AMENDED COMPLAINT

 This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. l983 for money damages by a handicapped child and his parents against a public school teacher and other school officials for refusing to accommodate the child’s handicapping condition in the classroom and a claim for injunctive relief against the Taylor County Board of Education to enforce laws that protect handicapped students. The Plaintiffs request the right to bring this case under the names of John Doe and Jane Doe and the initials D. D. to protect the family and child from further embarrassment and publicity regarding the child’s handicap.

 1. The Plaintiffs, John and Jane Doe, are residents of Taylor County, West Virginia and are the parents of D. D., age 16, who has a learning disability as defined by state and federal law.

2. Defendant, Michael Withers, is a public school history teacher at Grafton High School and was Plaintiff D. D.’s teacher during relevant time periods and as such was responsible for the daily delivery of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to the Plaintiff, D.D.

3. Defendant, Greg Cartwright, is the principal of Grafton High School and as such was responsible for the administration of Grafton High School and the duty to see that handicapped students at Grafton High School were afforded their rights to a FAPE under state and federal law.

4. Defendant, Wendell Teets, is the superintendent of Taylor County Schools and as such is responsible for the administration of educational services in Taylor County as well as the duty to see that principals and teachers under his supervision provide handicapped students with a FAPE as required by state and federal law.

5. The Defendant, Taylor County Board of Education, is a public corporation which has the duty to set educational policy and to ensure that the educational system of Taylor County protects the rights of handicapped students to a FAPE, pursuant to Public Law 94-142 20 U.S.C. :1400 et. seq; and implementing regulations; 34 C.F.R. 300.340 and 300.235.

6. Plaintiff D. D. was diagnosed as having a learning disability in the fourth grade while attending Anna Jarvis School in Taylor County. He was thereafter educated pursuant to an Individual Educational Program CIEP) designed to accommodate his learning disability as required by Public Law 94-142 and implementing federal regulations, 34 C.F.R. 300.130 and implementing State Policy No. 2419, Section 1.3, 1.4 and 2.11.

7. Because of Plaintiff D. D.'s learning disability his educational program was adapted to provide for oral testing by a learning disabilities teacher in a learning disabilities resource classroom.

8. Oral testing of Plaintiff D. D. was appropriate for him and was regularly provided at Anna Jarvis School and Grafton Middle School.

9. In the Fall of 1990, the Plaintiff, D. D., entered Grafton High School as a learning disabled student and was assigned to Defendant Michael Withers' history class.

10. The Plaintiff, D. D., received low grades in most subjects during the first quarter of his first year at Grafton High School.

11. Concerned about their son’s low grades, the Plaintiffs, John Doe and Jane Doe, scheduled meetings with all of D. D.’s teachers to discuss their son’s IEP and to stress the need for oral testing by a learning disabilities teacher in a learning disability resource room.

12. The Plaintiffs, John Doe and Jane Doe, met with all of D. D.’s teachers.

13. All teachers but Defendant Michael Withers agreed to comply with the oral testing by the learning disabilities teacher in the learning disability resource room.

14. Thereafter the Plaintiff, D. D., delivered to the Defendant, Michael Withers, a note from the special education coordinator at Grafton High School directing the Defendant, Michael Withers, to have the Plaintiff tested orally by the learning disabilities teacher in the learning disability resource room.

15. The Defendant, Michael Withers, refused to comply with this directive.

16. Notwithstanding repeated notices and directives regarding D. D.’s handicap and his need for oral testing by a learning disabilities teacher in the learning disabilities resource room, the Defendant, Michael Withers, refused to comply and administered approximately nine (9) more written tests to Plaintiff D. D., most of which Plaintiff D. D. failed because of his handicap.

 17. The refusal of Defendant and the negligence of the other Defendants in failing to assure the requirement of oral testing as required by the child’s IEP resulted in an unauthorized and illegal change in special education services to the Plaintiff, D. D., in violation of Plaintiff D. D.’s rights to procedural safeguards as guaranteed by federal law and implementing regulations. 20 USC S1400, et seq. and 34 CFR 300.500 et. seq.

 18. During history class, the Defendant, Michael Withers, insulted and belittled the Plaintiff, D. D., a handicapped student, in front of other students causing Plaintiff D. D. to become extremely embarrassed and angry.

 19. On or about November 14, 1990, after grade reports were sent home to the Plaintiffs, John Doe and Jane Doe, regarding their son, the parents attempted to meet again with Defendant, Michael Withers.

 20. Defendant Michael Withers did not meet with the Plaintiffs because, upon information and belief, he was deer hunting.

 21. During all relevant time periods Defendants Greg Cartwright, Principal of Grafton High School, and Wendell Teets, Superintendent of Schools of Taylor County, knew or should have known of the failure of Defendant Michael Withers to deliver to the Plaintiff, D. D., a FAPE in conformance with state and federal law, but failed to require Defendant Withers' compliance.

 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent and/or intentional acts and omissions of all Defendants, the Plaintiff, D. D., failed his history course during the Fall, 1990 school semester and received zero credits on his permanent school record.

 23. As a result of having failed Defendant Michael Withers' course, the Plaintiff, D. D., was forbidden by school officials to participate in his extracurricular activities.

 24. In or about January, 1991 the Defendant, Michael Withers, left Grafton High School on a leave of absence for Charleston, West Virginia, where the Defendant is in the State Legislature.

 25. The Plaintiff, D. D., was then assigned a substitute history teacher who promptly complied with the modified testing procedures for the Plaintiff.

 26. As a result of being properly evaluated during the second semester, the Plaintiff’s grades dramatically improved in history.

 27. The Plaintiffs, John Doe and Jane Doe, filed a grievance against the Defendant, Michael Withers, regarding his acts and omissions toward the Plaintiff, D. D., and prevailed on said grievance before the State Board of Education.

 28. As a result of prevailing on the grievance against Defendant Withers, the Taylor County Board of Education was required to administer a comprehensive examination to the Plaintiff, D. D. , which examination was administered by the learning disabilities teacher.

 29. The administration of the comprehensive examination required the Plaintiff, D. D., to intensively prepare for an entire semester’s examination and testing. This re-preparation and re-testing was extremely time consuming and embarrassing to the Plaintiff and caused the Plaintiff’s grades in other classes to drop.

 30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and/or intentional acts and omissions of the Defendants, the Plaintiff, D. D., in addition to receiving zero credits for history was subjected to embarrassment and shame within the school community.
 


I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1983

 31. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set forth herein.

 32. The Defendants, acting under color of state law as public school teachers, principals, administrators and the Board of Education, deprived the Plaintiff, D. D., of his statutorily protected civil right to a FAPE as guaranteed by federal and state laws for the education of handicapped children and as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 3, Section 10 of the Constitution of the State of West Virginia.

 33. As a result of these constitutional deprivations, the Plaintiffs were damaged as alleged herein.

 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for damages as follows:

    COMPENSATORY
 

$30,000.00 against Defendant Michael Withers;

$10,000.00 against Defendant Greg Cartwright;

$10,000.00 against Defendant Wendell Teets; and

$10,000.00 against Defendant Taylor County Board of Education.
 

    PUNITIVE
 

$30,000.00 against Defendant Michael Withers.

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs pray for injunctive relief requiring all Defendants to immediately comply with the requirements of Public Law 94-142 as well as federal and state laws and regulations protecting the rights of handicapped children to a Free Appropriate Public Education. The Plaintiffs also pray for attorney’s fees and costs and such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate.

JOHN DOE,

JANE DOE and By Counsel.

Bill Byrne and Lloyd W. Spring, III represented the child in Doe v. Withers.

Recently, Bill Byrne represented a a profoundly deaf high school student who ran afoul of an age rule that prevented him from playing interescholastic sports in J. R. Traylor v Board of Education. He relied on the West Virginia Human Rights Act and the obligation for reasonable accommodation under state law.


 
William F. Byrne, Esq.

Byrne and Hedges, Attorneys at Law 
141 Walnut Street, 
Morgantown, WV 26505-5421 

Office: (304) 296-0123 
Fax: (304) 296-0713 
E mail: bbyrne@labs.net

 
Note: After Doe v. Withers was posted at our website, we received the following email:

> Dear Wrights,
> I'm not sure of the relevancy of citing a case that's 15 years old---or did I
> misread something?  If not, it just seems inflammatory.
> Gary

Response to Gary as follows:

Your point is well taken.

Doe v. Withers is a 1992 case decided in part under United States Code Section
1983. (Thus the 15 year confusion.) For some reason, unknown to us, in the past
month a number of people have emailed us seeking info about the case and it is
not anywhere on the Net. I discuss it in some of our articles at our website and, years ago, (1992) wrote an analysis of the case on the Compuserve Attention Deficit Disorder Forum.  I suspect the case is presently a hot topic on a listserv that has resulted in the flurry of emails to us.

Practically speaking, it is nothing more than a simple civil jury trial, unreported in any of the State or Federal Court Reporters. Yet it is also a major landmark case. Because it was civil jury trial verdict, and not appealed, it is not reported in any of the usual published caselaw decisions, which are about cases on appeal.

It is significant because it was the first special ed jury trial and also was the first special ed dollar damage trial.

It is also very significant because the history teacher, (a prominent member of the General Assembly at that time, and, I think, a member of the education funding committee) would not follow the IEP, despite being instructed to by the Supt, School Principal, Special Ed Director, and special ed teacher. The special ed teacher and Director of Special Education were not defendants in the civil suit because there was documentation in the file that they directed to the teacher to follow the IEP. The Superintendent and School Principal were dismissed from the case because they too, had told Withers to follow the IEP. I'm not totally sure that my understanding of  all of the facts are correct and we expect to have some more in depth "first person" articles about the case by some of the players.

It was significant for several reasons and it paved the way for all of the later special ed damage cases such as WB v. Matula (landmark 3rd Circuit) and the more recent ones at our website.

I hope this clarifies why Doe v. Withers has been posted at the website.

Your email tells me that we need to do a better job in providing background about cases that we post at the website and why they were posted.  I appreciate your emailing me and I suspect other readers may have had the same thought but kept it to themselves.

Tnx,

Pete
 
  
 Home

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon The Special Ed Advocate: It's Free!

 

Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About IEPs
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board
About the DVD Video

 

Copyright © 1998-2014, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved.

Contact Us | Press Mission l Our Awards l Privacy Policy l Disclaimer l Site Map

 

What's New!

Now Shipping!

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Check it out!

Wrightslaw Store

The Advocate's Store

Get Help!

Blog the Wrightslaw

Wrightslaw on Facebook

Find us on Facebook

Wrightslaw Books

Student Discounts

Military Discounts


Wrightslaw: All About IEPs

About the Book
To Order

Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright
About the Book
To Order


About the Book

To Order


Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board

About the DVD Video
To Order


To Order


Wrightslaw: No Child Left Behind

About the Book
To Order

Wrightslaw Multimedia Training


Understanding Your Child's
Test Scores (1.5 hrs)

Understanding Your Child's Test Scores

Learn More
To Order
Retail Price: $
24.95
Wrightslaw Special: $14.95

Special Education Law & Advocacy Training
(6.5 hrs)


Wrightslaw WebEx Special Education Law & Training Program (6.5 hrs)


Learn More
To Order
Retail Price: $99.95
Wrightslaw Special: $49.95