Case:
Conn. Office of Prot. and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities
v. Hartford Bd. Of Educ.
___ F.3d ___, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 23469
Education
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
September 15, 2006
The Second Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment which entered
a permanent injunction against the Hartford Board of Education in
the case of Protection & Advocacy v. Hartford Bd. of Educ.
This is the case where the state office of Protection and Advocacy
for Persons with Disabilities (P&A) brought suit against the Hartford
Board of Educ. ("HBOE") requesting access to the HBOE's controversial
Hartford Transitional Learning Academy ("HTLA") to (1) observe programs
and speak with students and (2) give P&A a directory of HTLA students
and contact information for their parents/guardians to investigate
allegations of abuse and neglect at the school. In a lengthy decision
issued in February 2005, the District Court declared that defendants'
refusal to provide the agency with physical access to the facility
when students were present and with name and contact information
for parents and legal guardians of the facility's students violated
the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness
Act (PAIMI), 42 U.S.C. §§ 15001-15115 and the Protection and Advocacy
of Individual Rights Act (PAIR), 29 U.S.C. § 794e. Defendants were
ordered to grant both physical access and names and contact information
to allow the agency to perform its statutory duty to investigate
suspected abuse and neglect.
On appeal - the HBOE challenged
the courts findings, and added the assertion that the Family Education
Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA") and Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act ("IDEA") prohibited release of information, visitation
during school hours, etc. even if PAIMI and PAIR provided P&A access
to the students and information. After oral argument - the Circuit
Court solicited the US Depts. of Education and Health and Human
Services to file amicus briefs to provide their interpretation of
FERPA and IDEA. Both agencies filed documents soundly rejecting
HBOE's arguments - and thus HBOE dropped that portion of their appeal,
The Court went on to affirm the District Court's holding - including
the issuance of the permanent injunction.
The key issues decided on
appeal involved mootness, access to the academy, and parent/guardian
contact information. The court affirmed the findings of the district
court on the latter two issues - signifying that P&A is inherently
charged with not only the mission, but the responsibility of protecting
persons with disabilities who are warehoused at schools implicitly
designed for impaired individuals. On the mootness issue - the HBOE's
deference to the HHS and the US Department of Education did not
moot their appeal - because P&A has continuing statutory duty to
perform its duty to "investigate suspected abuse and neglect."
The case may be found on
LEXIS or Westlaw, or by going to the Second Circuit's website at
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov.
