In a preliminary ruling in lawsuit filed by Disability Rights Texas against Klein Independent School District (“KISD”), a federal district judge recently denied the school district’s motion to dismiss the case, allowing the case to proceed further.  Various federal laws provide funding for states to establish protection and advocacy programs for people with disabilities.  In Texas, the protection and advocacy organization is Disability Rights of Texas (“DRTx”).  Although a preliminary and not a final decision, KISD was sued for allegedly not allowing access for DRTx to visit various special education classes within the district to investigate complaints about overly restrictive placements and inadequate services for students with disabilities.  

DRTx’s allegations were as follows:

o   KISD repeatedly denied or delayed DRTx's requests to visit the schools over a period of several months, citing district policies on visitation and trespassing.
‍

o   In one instance, a KISD police officer threatened to arrest DRTx staff for trespassing when they attempted to visit an elementary school.
‍

o   DRTx filed a lawsuit against KISD's superintendent and school board president in their official capacities, alleging violations of federal disability rights laws and Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act.
‍

Legal Basis for Court's Decision:

The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss DRTx's Section 1983 claim, finding that DRTx had sufficiently alleged that:

o   There was an official KISD Board of Trustees policy governing access to school campuses ("GKA-Community Relations: Conduct on School Premises").
‍

o   This policy was the "moving force" behind KISD's refusal to allow DRTx access, in violation of federal protection and advocacy laws.
‍

o   The Board of Trustees, as the final policymaker for the school district, could be charged with knowledge of this policy.
‍

o   The court rejected the defendants' argument that the claims against them in their official capacities were redundant, noting that KISD itself was no longer a party to the lawsuit in the amended complaint.
‍

o   The court also clarified that DRTx was not asserting a Section 1983 claim against the superintendent in her individual capacity, only a claim for violating the protection and advocacy laws.
‍

In its ruling, the court found that DRTx had adequately pleaded the elements required to establish liability under Section 1983 by tying the alleged violations to an official board policy, rather than just the actions of individual district officials.

Meaning

Federal law gives protection and advocacy agencies the right to access facilities and records of individuals served in facilities, including school districts, that provide services to individuals with disabilities. For that reason, a school district should carefully consider requests from DRTx and be wary of totally excluding protection and advocacy groups from school grounds, especially when those groups reach out to the district's counsel to arrange site visits. DRTx should have an authorization, and there are multiple statutes and sets of regulations under which DRTx operates, so inquiry regarding authority and guardian consent is permissible. In this case, the protection and advocacy agency sought to investigate claims that some students with disabilities had overly restrictive placements or were receiving inadequate services. The repeated denial of agency representatives to have access, based on the school board's visitation and trespass policy, resulted in litigation. Should any question arise, districts should consult with their counsel.  

Author:  Hans Graff

Disability Rights Texas v. Klein Independent School District, 124 LRP 29865, 4:23-CV-02973, (S.D. Tex. August 6, 2024[JJ1] )