WORK WITH US
Court Finds Peer Bullying And School’s Response To Bullying Is Unrelated To Student’s Disability
The St. Paul’s School for Girls is a private day school for girls in Maryland. From April 4, 2020 through September 2021, the School was a recipient of a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which required the School to comply with federal civil rights law.
A.B.F. was a high school student at the School between 2017 and 2021. A.B.F. had a learning disability and anxiety disorder, and entered an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) with the School to accommodate her needs.
A.B.F.’s mother expressed dissatisfaction with the School’s handling of her daughter’s IEP accommodations. In particular, in February 2020, her mother requested specific disability accommodations to allow A.B.F. to participate in Advanced Placement (AP) English courses. The School’s upper school head, Christina Ferrens, allegedly instructed teachers to disregard these requests, labeling the mother as “crazy” and saying that the mother made a “federal case out of everything.”
A.B.F. said her challenges at the School also escalated due to bullying by peers, specifically led by K.P., a fellow student and a teacher’s daughter. From September 2019 to June 2021, the bullying included exclusion, malicious teasing and putdowns, manipulative behavior, and derogatory comments in group texts and social media, including during school hours. For example, in January 2020, a group of students “banished” A.B.F. from their friend group but continued to exchange angry texts about her and posted bullying images of A.B.F. online. The bullying reportedly caused significant emotional harm, absenteeism, and academic challenges for A.B.F.
A.B.F.’s mother claimed that her efforts to resolve the bullying with the School’s administration were met with indifference or inadequate action. Despite meetings with school officials, the School attributed the bullying to “social dynamics” and, according to A.B.F., failed to investigate allegations seriously. For example, K.P.’s mother, a teacher at the School, allegedly apologized to A.B.F.’s mother, agreed to turn over the bullying text messages she had in her possession, and agreed to have her daughter apologize and self-report her conduct to the School. Yet, K.P.’s mother failed to follow through with those agreements. A.B.F. also alleged that Ferrens instructed K.P.’s mother not to share the text messages so that the School would not have report them to A.B.F.’s family or law enforcement.
In March 2020, A.B.F.’s parents filed formal complaints of bullying with the School. The parents claimed that the School failed to investigate the allegations of bullying due to Ferrens’ anger that A.B.F.’s family had advocated for disability accommodations the month prior.
A.B.F.’s family then filed suit arguing that the School’s decision to dismiss the bullying complaints, combined with its failure to fulfill obligations under A.B.F.’s IEP, led to claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, as well as other state law claims.
Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability in places of public accommodation, such as private schools. Remedies under Title III are limited to injunctive relief and do not allow for monetary damages.
A.B.F. argued that the School discriminated against her based on her disabilities by failing to address her educational needs and bullying complaints. She also alleged retaliatory actions against her parents for advocating for her rights.
The School argued that the ADA permits only injunctive relief and requires proof of immediate and ongoing harm. As A.B.F. had graduated in 2021, she lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. The Court agreed with the School, noting that A.B.F. failed to demonstrate a real and immediate threat of harm post-graduation, leading to dismissal of the ADA claims.
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) prohibits disability-based discrimination in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. It provides for monetary damages where intentional discrimination is proven.
To state a disability discrimination claim under section 504, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) they have a disability; (2) they are otherwise qualified to participate in the defendant’s program; and (3) they were excluded from the program, denied benefits, or otherwise discriminated against “solely by reason of” their disability.
A.B.F. argued that the School’s refusal to investigate bullying complaints was motivated by discriminatory intent regarding her disabilities. A.B.F., however, did not argue that the School failed to investigate her bullying allegations solely because she had a learning disability or anxiety. Instead, A.B.F. contended that the School failed to investigate the bullying allegations in retaliation for her right to disability accommodations in AP courses. In other words, the School acted with retaliatory intent.
The Court ruled that A.B.F.’s allegations did not demonstrate that the School’s actions were “solely by reason of” her disability, as required under the Rehabilitation Act and therefore dismissed this claim.
Retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act require showing that: (1) the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity under the Act; (2) the plaintiff suffered an adverse action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.
A.B.F. contended that the School retaliated against her family because of her requesting disability accommodations. The Court found, however, that the parents engaged in protected activity when they had discussions regarding A.B.F.’s disability between February 15 and February 20, 2020. Because the School did not receive their PPP loan until April 4, 2020, the School was not subject to the Rehabilitation Act during the time of these conversations, and therefore these conversations were not considered protected activity. The Court dismissed this claim, as well.
The remaining claims included negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Maryland law. The Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over these state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, allowing them to be refiled in state court within 30 days.
Fitch v. St. Paul’s Sch. for Girls (D.Md. Dec. 11, 2024) 2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 223760.
Note: In this case, the student and her family were unable to show a connection between the School’s response to peer bullying and the student’s disability. This case may be refiled in state court to address the family’s remaining claims. LCW will continue to monitor this case for developments.