Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 1 of 16
CLOSED,ECF,MAGCONSENT
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−08777−JLC

T.H. et al v. Walcott et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge James L. Cott Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Other Plaintiff T.H. individually and as next friend to minor child J.H.
Plaintiff K.P. as next friend to minor child W.P.

Date Filed: 12/11/2013 Date Terminated: 04/28/2015 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Christopher D. Lamb Legal Services Nyc−Bronx 329 E. 149th Street New York, NY 10451 (718)−928−3723 Fax: (718)−292−5873 Email: clamb@lsny.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy Bedard South Brooklyn Legal Services 105 Court Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 (718) 237−5568 Fax: (718) 855−0733 Email: nbedard@sbls.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nanette Schorr Bronx Legal Services 579 Courtlandt Avenue Bronx, NY 10451 (718)−928−3764 Fax: (718)−402−7585 Email: nschorr@lsnybronx.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nelson Mar Legal Services for New York City−Bronx 349 East 149th Street 10th Floor Bronx, NY 10451 718−928−3756 Fax: 718−4017097 Email: nmar@bx.ls−nyc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Foster Queens Legal Services Corp. 42−15 Crescent St 9th Flr Long Island City, NY 11101 (347)−592−2234 Email: tfoster@qls.ls−nyc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher D. Lamb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 2 of 16

Plaintiff K.J. inidividually and as next friend to minor child J.R.
Plaintiff C.J. individually and as next friend to minor child J.M.
Plaintiff Y.P. individually and as next friend to minor child N.R.

Daniel Erik Mullkoff Cuti Hecker Wang, LLP (nyc) 305 Broadway, Suite 607 New York, NY 10007 (212)−620−2606 Fax: (212)−620−2616 Email: dmullkoff@chwllp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mariann Meier Wang Cuti Hecker Wang, LLP (nyc) 305 Broadway, Suite 607 New York, NY 10007 212−620−2603 Fax: 212−620−2613 Email: mwang@chwllp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher D. Lamb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy Bedard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nelson Mar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Foster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher D. Lamb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy Bedard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nelson Mar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara Foster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christopher D. Lamb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy Bedard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nelson Mar

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 3 of 16

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara Foster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
M.E. individually and as next friend to minor child D.E.

represented by Christopher D. Lamb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nancy Bedard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nelson Mar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara Foster (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
R. M. T. individually and as next friend to the minor child R.T.

represented by Christopher D. Lamb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
N. C. R. individually and as next friend to minor child C.R.

represented by Christopher D. Lamb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
A. D. individually and as next friend to minor child S.D.

represented by Christopher D. Lamb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
T. W. individually and as next friend to minor child A.A.

represented by Christopher D. Lamb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
I. S. individually and as next friend to the minor child Q.A.

represented by Nanette Schorr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher D. Lamb (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Dennis Walcott as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education TERMINATED: 03/18/2014

represented by Elizabeth Edmonds Nyc Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 4 of 16

(212) 788−0860 Fax: (212) 788−8877 Email: eedmonds@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
New York City Department of Education

represented by Elizabeth Edmonds (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn Richter Corp. Counsel of the City of NY 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212)788−0931 Fax: 212 788−0940 Email: mrichter@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Omar Hani Tuffaha New York City Law Department 100 Church St. New York, NY 10014 (212) 356−0896 Fax: (212)−788−0877 Email: otuffaha@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Serena Mabel Longley NYC Law Department 100 Church Street, RM3−200 New York, NY 10007 (212) 788−0957 Fax: (212) 788−8877 Email: slongley@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant The City of New York

represented by Elizabeth Edmonds (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn Richter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Omar Hani Tuffaha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Serena Mabel Longley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Salvatore J. Cassano as Commissioner of the Fire Department of New York

represented by Elizabeth Edmonds (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 5 of 16

Marilyn Richter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Omar Hani Tuffaha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Serena Mabel Longley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
1−24 John/Jane Doe in their individual capacities

Defendant
Carmen Farina New York City Department of Education 52 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education

represented by Elizabeth Edmonds (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marilyn Richter (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Omar Hani Tuffaha (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Serena Mabel Longley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/11/2013
12/11/2013
12/11/2013 12/11/2013 12/23/2013
12/23/2013
12/23/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Salvatore J. Cassano, John/Jane Doe, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York, Dennis Walcott. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 1083222)Document filed by M.E., K.J., K.P., C.J., T.H., Y.P.(laq) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/17/2013: # 1 cmp part 2, # 2 cmp part 3) (laq). (Entered: 12/16/2013)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Salvatore J. Cassano, John/Jane Doe, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York, Dennis Walcott. (laq) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
Magistrate Judge James L. Cott is so designated. (laq) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
Case Designated ECF. (laq) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
2 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Salvatore J. Cassano served on 12/16/2013, answer due 1/6/2014. Service was accepted by Clerk. Document filed by M.E.; K.J.; K.P.; C.J.; T.H.; Y.P.. (Mar, Nelson) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Dennis Walcott served on 12/16/2013, answer due 1/6/2014. Service was accepted by Clerk. Document filed by M.E.; K.J.; K.P.; C.J.; T.H.; Y.P.. (Mar, Nelson) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
4 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. New York City Department of Education served on 12/12/2013, answer due 1/2/2014; The City of New York served on 12/12/2013, answer due 1/2/2014. Service was accepted by Clerk. Document filed by M.E.; K.J.; K.P.; C.J.; T.H.; Y.P.. (Mar, Nelson) (Entered: 12/23/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 6 of 16

12/30/2013 12/31/2013 12/31/2013 01/02/2014 01/17/2014 01/21/2014 01/28/2014 02/24/2014 02/27/2014 03/04/2014 03/05/2014
03/11/2014

5 NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 3/4/2014 at 03:45 PM in Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/26/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Elizabeth Sheehan Edmonds on behalf of Salvatore J. Cassano, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York, Dennis Walcott. (Edmonds, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/31/2013)
7 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Elizabeth Edmonds dated December 31, 2013. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York, Dennis Walcott.(Edmonds, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/31/2013)
8 ORDER granting in part 7 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants are granted a 30−day extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Jesse M. Furman)(Text Only Order) (Furman, Jesse) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
9 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Elizabeth Edmonds dated January 17, 2014. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York, Dennis Walcott.(Edmonds, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
10 ORDER granting in part 9 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants are granted until February 24, 2014 to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. No further extensions will be granted. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Jesse M. Furman)(Text Only Order) (Furman, Jesse) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
11 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Nanette Schorr on behalf of T.H.. (Schorr, Nanette) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
12 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York, Dennis Walcott.(Edmonds, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
13 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Christopher D. Lamb dated February 27, 2014 re: joint letter in advance of initial conference. Document filed by T.H.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order)(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jesse M. Furman: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 3/4/2014. Mariann Wang present for plaintiff K.P. Christopher Lamb, Nancy Bedard, Nanette Schorr and Nelson Mar present for the remaining plaintiffs. Elizabeth Edmonds and Omar Tuffaha present for the Defendants. (ab) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
14 CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RESCHEDULING ORDER: All parties do not consent to conducting all further proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge, including motions and trial. This case is to be tried to a jury. Amended Pleadings due by 3/17/2014. Motions for judgements on the pleadings due by 3/21/2014. Deposition due by 10/2/2014. Fact Discovery due by 10/2/2014. Expert Discovery due by 11/16/2014. Discovery due by 9/4/2014. Pretrial Conference set for 10/2/2014 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman. The parties shall meet and confer is person this week regarding the scope of releases from Plaintiffs and a protective order. The parties shall advise the Court by joint letter no later than March 11, 2014, if they have reached agreement on those matters and, if not, shall propose a process and deadlines for resolving any remaining disagreements. The parties shall submit a joint letter no later than April 4, 2014, regarding their settlement discussions and desire, if any, for a referral to the assigned Magistrate Judge. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/4/2014) (kgo) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
15 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Elizabeth Edmonds dated March 11, 2014 re: releases and protective order. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York, Dennis Walcott.(Edmonds, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/11/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 7 of 16

03/12/2014 03/17/2014 03/17/2014 03/18/2014
03/18/2014
03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/18/2014 03/19/2014 03/19/2014

16 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 15 Letter filed by The City of New York, Dennis Walcott, New York City Department of Education, Salvatore J. Cassano. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/12/2014) (ajs) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
17 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF CONFIDENTIALITY...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material...SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/17/2014) (mro) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
18 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT PLEADING − FILED AGAINST PARTY ERROR AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint, against All Defendants with JURY DEMAND.Document filed by T.H.. Related document: 1 Complaint, filed by K.P., T.H., M.E., K.J., C.J., Y.P..(Lamb, Christopher) Modified on 3/18/2014 (cde). (Entered: 03/17/2014)
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT AMENDED COMPLAINT. Notice to Attorney Christopher D. Lamb RE: Document No. 18 Amended Complaint,. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): g Re−file the document and select the correct party you are filing against.Select the Add Party for Pleading event found under the event category Complaints and Other Initiating Documents. (cde) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
19 AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 18 Amended Complaint, against Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, John/Jane Doe, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York with JURY DEMAND.Document filed by K.P., T.H., M.E., K.J., C.J., Y.P., S. D., R. M. T., N. C. R., C. R., A. D., T. W., Q. A., A. A., I. S.. Related document: 18 Amended Complaint, filed by T.H..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
20 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Elizabeth Edmonds dated March 18, 2014 re: Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York.(Edmonds, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING REMOVAL OF PARTY. The following party has been removed from this case as ADR Providers and changed to plaintiffs: A.A., O.A, S.D., C.R. and R.T.. The party was added to the case in error. The plaintiff's party text information was not added. (laq) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING PARTY MODIFICATION. The following party has been modified:Dennis Walcott.The party has been modified for the following reason(s): Party name was not terminated. (laq) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING PARTY MODIFICATION. The following party has been modified:Carmen Farina.The party has been modified for the following reason(s): Party name was entered incorrectly. (laq) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING PARTY MODIFICATION. The following party has been modified:John/Jane Doe.The party has been modified for the following reason(s): Party name was entered incorrectly. (laq) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
21 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Christopher D. Lamb dated March 19, 2014 re: Defendants' motion to dismiss. Document filed by A. A., Q. A., C.J., A. D., S. D., K.J., K.P., M.E., C. R., N. C. R., I. S., R. T., T.H., T. W., Y.P..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
22 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 21 Letter, filed by A. D., T. W., I. S., K.P., N. C. R., T.H., K.J., M.E., C.J., R. M. T., Y.P. Defendants shall file their motion to dismiss no later than March 31, 2014; any opposition shall be filed no later than April 21, 2014; and any reply shall be filed no later than April 30, 2014. Counsel are reminded that applications for extensions of time should be filed as letter motions, not ordinary letters. Counsel should consult the Court's Individual Rules and the SDNY ECF Rules and Instructions for further guidance. (Motions due by 3/31/2014. Responses due by 4/21/2014. Replies due by 4/30/2014.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 8 of 16

03/27/2014 03/31/2014 03/31/2014 03/31/2014 04/01/2014 04/01/2014
04/01/2014 04/02/2014

3/19/2014) (ajs) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
23 LETTER MOTION for Local Rule 37.2 Conference Regarding Scope of Releases addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Omar H. Tuffaha dated 3/27/14. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York.(Tuffaha, Omar) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York. Responses due by 4/21/2014(Edmonds, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
25 DECLARATION of Rachael Teitel in Support re: 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York. (Edmonds, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
26 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York. (Edmonds, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
27 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − LETTER MOTION for Local Rule 37.2 Conference Regarding Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Request for Additional Releases addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Christopher D. Lamb dated April 1, 2014. Document filed by C.J., A. D., K.J., K.P., M.E., N. C. R., I. S., R. M. T., T.H., T. W., Y.P..(Lamb, Christopher) Modified on 4/2/2014 (db). (Entered: 04/01/2014)
28 ORDER: On March 31, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), a plaintiff has twenty−one (21) days after the service of a motion under Rule 12(b) to amend the complaint once as a matter of course. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff shall file any amended complaint by April 21, 2014. Plaintiff will not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss. If plaintiff does amend, by three (3) weeks after the amended complaint is filed, defendant shall: (1) file an answer; (2) file a new motion to dismiss; or (3) submit a letter to the Court, copying plaintiff, stating that it relies on the previously filed motion to dismiss. If defendant files an answer or a new motion to dismiss, the Court will deny the previously filed motion to dismiss as moot. Pursuant to the Case Management Plan (Docket No. 14) and the Endorsed Letter of March 19, 2014 (Docket No. 22), it is further ORDERED that, if no amended complaint is filed, plaintiff shall serve any opposition to the motion to dismiss by April 21, 2014. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be served by April 30, 2014. At the time any reply is served, the moving party shall supply the Court with one courtesy hard copy of all motion papers by mailing or delivering them to the United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York. Finally, the parties are reminded that discovery is not stayed pending a ruling on the motion. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/1/2014) (mro) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 4/21/2014. (mro) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
29 ORDER denying 23 and 27 Letter Motions for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. There is no need for a conference to address the parties' disputes as Plaintiffs' objections to the proposed releases are overruled. Defendants are entitled to the medical and mental health records they seek as Plaintiffs have put the medical and mental health of the student Plaintiffs directly into issue. The fact that Plaintiffs seek only "garden variety" damages is of no moment, as Defendants are entitled to the records to contest liability. And any privacy interests are adequately addressed by the protective order that is in place. (Docket No. 17). With respect to Plaintiffs' remaining objections − to the releases for certain Plaintiffs' private school and private evaluation records and ACS records − Plaintiffs have not invoked any privilege, but appear to challenge only the relevance of such records. Given the broad definition of relevance for purposes of discovery, those objections are without merit. Again, any privacy concerns are adequately addressed by the protective order. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' objections are overruled, and they are ordered to provide the releases at issue within one week of this Order. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Jesse M. Furman)(Text Only

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 9 of 16

04/04/2014 04/07/2014 04/10/2014
04/17/2014 04/17/2014 04/18/2014
04/18/2014
04/18/2014 04/21/2014 04/28/2014

Order) (Furman, Jesse) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
30 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Christopher D. Lamb dated April 4, 2014 re: Parties' Request for Referral to Magistrate Judge for Settlement Conference. Document filed by C.J., A. D., K.J., K.P., M.E., N. C. R., I. S., R. M. T., T.H., T. W., Y.P..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
31 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for Settlement. Referred to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. No later than April 9, 2014, the parties shall contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Cott to schedule a settlement conference for as soon as possible. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/7/2014) (mro) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
32 ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: By Order of Reference dated April 7, 2014 (Dkt. No. 31), Judge Furman referred this case to me for settlement. Upon request of the parties, a settlement conference will be held before me on May 29, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 21D, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. The parties should also note that paragraph 3 of the Standing Order requires ex parte written submissions, which must be received by the Court no later than five (5) business days before the conference, that is, May 21, 2014 (in light of the Memorial Day holiday). (Settlement Conference set for 5/29/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 21D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 4/10/2014) (ja) (Main Document 32 replaced on 4/10/2014) (ja). (Entered: 04/10/2014)
33 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Elizabeth Edmonds dated April 17, 2014 re: Releases. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York.(Edmonds, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
34 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Christopher D. Lamb dated April 17, 2014 re: Releases. Document filed by C.J., A. D., K.J., K.P., M.E., N. C. R., I. S., R. M. T., T.H., T. W., Y.P..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
35 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 33 Letter filed by The City of New York, New York City Department of Education, Carmen Farina, Salvatore J. Cassano. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiffs are in violation of the Court's order, which required compliance by April 9, 2014. (The fact that Defense counsel agreed to an extension does not mitigate Plaintiffs' violation, as Plaintiffs' counsel did not seek an extension from the Court.) Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a letter no later than April 22, 2014, showing cause why the Court should not impose sanctions for the violation. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/18/2014) (mro) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
36 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 34 Letter filed by A. D., T. W., I. S., K.P., N. C. R., T.H., K.J., M.E., C.J., R. M. T., Y.P. ENDORSEMENT: The Court endorsed Defendants' letter before receiving this letter, although the endorsement was not docketed until after the Court received this letter. In light of this letter, the Court's prior endorsement is moot. Plaintiffs' counsel shall provide the remaining releases to Defendants no later than April 28, 2014. If Plaintiff's counsel is unable to do so, counsel shall apply to the Court for additional time, explaining what steps counsel has taken to comply with this Order and why additional time is needed. Counsel on both sides are encouraged to work together to resolve these and any other discovery disputes. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/18/2014) (ajs) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
37 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Daniel Erik Mullkoff on behalf of K.P.. (Mullkoff, Daniel) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
38 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.. Document filed by C.J., A. D., K.J., K.P., M.E., N. C. R., I. S., R. M. T., T.H., T. W., Y.P.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
39 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Elizabeth Edmonds dated April 28, 2014. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education,

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 10 of 16

04/29/2014 05/07/2014 05/15/2014 05/19/2014 06/19/2014 06/19/2014 06/24/2014 06/24/2014 06/26/2014 06/27/2014 06/30/2014
06/30/2014

The City of New York.(Edmonds, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
40 ORDER granting 39 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Defendants shall file their reply no later than May 7, 2014. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Jesse M. Furman)(Text Only Order) (Furman, Jesse) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
41 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 24 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. . Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York. (Edmonds, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
42 FIRST LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott from Elizabeth Edmonds dated May 15, 2014. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York.(Edmonds, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
43 ORDER granting 42 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference Settlement Conference set for 6/30/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 21D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. Ex parte settlement letters are due by June 23, 2014. (HEREBY ORDERED by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott)(Text Only Order) (Cott, James) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
44 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to file ex parte letters addressed to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott from Christopher D. Lamb dated June 19, 2014. Document filed by C.J., A. D., K.J., K.P., M.E., N. C. R., I. S., R. M. T., T.H., T. W., Y.P..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
45 ORDER granting 44 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. The request is Granted. (HEREBY ORDERED by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott)(Text Only Order) (Cott, James) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
46 LETTER MOTION for Conference Attendance Excusal addressed to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott from Christopher D. Lamb dated June 24, 2014. Document filed by T.H..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
47 ORDER granting 46 request for plaintiff TH to appear by telephone. Application granted. (HEREBY ORDERED by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott)(Text Only Order) (Cott, James) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
48 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Serena Mabel Longley on behalf of Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York. (Longley, Serena) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
49 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Marilyn Richter on behalf of Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York. (Richter, Marilyn) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
50 ORDER: At the end of the settlement conference held today, the Court, upon consultation with the parties, established the following schedule: Counsel for Defendants shall inform the undersigned by telephone no later than July 9, 2014 whether they have obtained approval of the settlement amounts discussed today as to Plaintiffs' emotional distress claims... Plaintiffs' counsel shall prepare a comprehensive draft settlement document and transmit it to counsel for Defendants no later than July 14, 2014. Defendants' counsel shall review the document and provide proposed revisions and counter proposals no later than August 15, 2014... The parties shall then send the latest version of the draft settlement document reflecting their negotiations to the undersigned by email to the address to which they sent their ex parte settlement letters no later than September 5, 2014... The Court will hold a subsequent settlement conference on September 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 21D, U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York... (Settlement Conference set for 9/10/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 21D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 6/30/2014) (ja) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott: Settlement Conference held on 6/30/2014. (Tam, David) (Entered: 07/02/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 11 of 16

07/16/2014 07/17/2014
09/04/2014 09/04/2014
09/10/2014 09/11/2014 09/12/2014 09/22/2014 09/23/2014
09/24/2014

51 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and to request that defendants' motion to dismiss be held in abeyance addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Omar H. Tuffaha dated July 16, 2014. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York.(Tuffaha, Omar) (Entered: 07/16/2014)
52 ORDER granting 51 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The discovery dates are extended as indicated in Defendants' letter. Further, the pretrial conference scheduled for October 2, 2014, is ADJOURNED to December 1, 2014, at 2:45 p.m. The parties are cautioned that the discovery deadlines will not be extended further on the basis of settlement discussions alone. Finally, the Court will hold the pending motion in abeyance until at least September 10, 2014. No later than September 12, 2014, Defendants shall file a letter indicating the parties' views on whether the Court should proceed to rule on the motion or continue to await the outcome of settlement discussions. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Jesse M. Furman)(Text Only Order) (Furman, Jesse) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
53 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott from Christopher D. Lamb dated September 4, 2014. Document filed by C.J., A. D., K.J., K.P., M.E., N. C. R., I. S., R. M. T., T.H., T. W., Y.P..(Lamb, Christopher) Modified on 9/5/2014 (db). (Entered: 09/04/2014)
54 ORDER granting 53 Letter Motion for Conference The continued settlement conference is rescheduled for 9/22/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 21D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. Ex parte letters are due no later than September 17, 2014 at 5 pm, with the understanding that the parties will meet in person at least once and perhaps twice more in advance of the conference in order to narrow the issues to be discussed. (HEREBY ORDERED by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott)(Text Only Order) (Cott, James) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
55 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Omar H. Tuffaha dated 9/10/14 re: request that defendants' motion to dismiss be held in abeyance until after the next settlement conference. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York.(Tuffaha, Omar) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
56 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 55 Letter, filed by The City of New York, New York City Department of Education, Carmen Farina, Salvatore J. Cassano. ENDORSEMENT: Application GRANTED. The parties shall report to the Court no later than September 24, 2014, regarding the status of the settlement discussions. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/10/2014) (tn) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
57 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Daniel Erik Mullkoff on behalf of K.P.. New Address: Cuti Hecker Wang LLP, 305 Broadway, Suite 607, New York, New York, U.S. 10007, 212−620−2606. (Mullkoff, Daniel) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott: Settlement Conference held on 9/22/2014. (Tam, David) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
58 ORDER: At the end of the settlement conference held yesterday, following consultation with the parties, the Court has scheduled two additional settlement conferences on October 14, 2014 and October 30, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 21D, U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. Counsel should plan to allocate the entire day for these conferences. (Settlement Conference set for 10/14/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 21D of the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. Settlement Conference set for 10/30/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 21D of the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 9/23/2014) (kgo) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
59 LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Omar H. Tuffaha dated 9/24/2014 re: Request for stay of discovery and permission to withdraw defendants' motion to dismiss without prejdudice. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York.(Tuffaha, Omar) (Entered: 09/24/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 12 of 16

09/24/2014
09/24/2014 10/14/2014 10/29/2014 10/31/2014
10/31/2014
11/06/2014 11/07/2014
11/13/2014 11/13/2014 11/25/2014 12/04/2014

60 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on 59 withdrawing 24 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. ENDORSEMENT: Applications GRANTED. The parties shall appear for a conference on November 5, 2014, at 3 p.m. Counsel should confer in advance of the conference with respect to the schedule going forward absent a settlement. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 24. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/24/2014) (tn) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 11/5/2014 at 03:00 PM before Judge Jesse M. Furman. (tn) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott: Settlement Conference held on 10/14/2014. (Tam, David) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott: Telephone Conference held on 10/29/2014. (Tam, David) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
61 REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER: that the conference in this matter, previously scheduled for November 5, 2014, at 3:00 p.m., is RESCHEDULED for November 20, 2014, at 2:45 p.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York. Status Conference set for 11/20/2014 at 02:45 PM in Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/31/2014) (tn) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
62 ORDER: This Order hereby confirms that the settlement conference that was originally scheduled for October 30, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. is rescheduled to November 6, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 21D, U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. As noted in the previous order (Dkt. No. 58), counsel should plan to allocate the entire day for the conference. Settlement Conference set for 11/6/2014 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 21D of the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/31/2014) (kgo) Modified on 11/5/2014 (kgo). (Entered: 10/31/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott: Settlement Conference held on 11/6/2014. (Tam, David) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
63 ORDER: At the conclusion of the settlement conference yesterday, the Court set the following deadlines: (1) Assuming the terms of the settlement are finalized, the parties are directed to submit their Stipulation and Order of Settlement (the "Stipulation") to the Court by December 5, 2014. The Stipulation shall be submitted to the undersigned if the parties complete a "consent form" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and submit it to Judge Furman by December 5, 2014. (2) Plaintiffs' counsel are directed to submit applications for infant compromise orders for their respective clients by December 19, 2014. These submissions should comply with Local Civil Rule 83.2. As discussed at yesterday's conference, the Court is prepared to dispense with a formal hearing, given that the plaintiffs appeared before the Court at the settlement conference on June 30, 2014 (and, in the case of one plaintiff, again on November 6, 2014). (Motions due by 12/19/2014.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 11/7/2014) (kgo) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
64 LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Christopher D. Lamb dated November 13, 2014. Document filed by C.J., A. D., K.J., K.P., M.E., N. C. R., I. S., R. M. T., T.H., T. W., Y.P..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
65 ORDER granting 64 Letter Motion to Cancel Conference. The November 20, 2014 conference is hereby cancelled. The parties shall submit either a consent form or their settlement to the Court no later than December 5, 2014. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Jesse M. Furman)(Text Only Order) (Furman, Jesse) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
66 SCHEDULING ORDER: In light of the Court's 11/13/2014 Order (Docket No. 65 ), the pretrial conference previously scheduled for 12/1/2014, at 2:45 p.m. (Docket No. 52 ) is adjourned sine die. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/25/2014) (tro) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
67 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to submit the parties' Stipulation addressed to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott from Omar H. Tuffaha dated 12/4/2014. Document filed by Salvatore J. Cassano, Carmen Farina, New York City Department of Education, The City of New York.(Tuffaha, Omar) (Entered: 12/04/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 13 of 16

12/04/2014 12/04/2014 12/04/2014 12/15/2014
12/19/2014 12/19/2014 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015

68 ORDER granting 67 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. The request is GRANTED. (HEREBY ORDERED by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott)(Text Only Order) (Cott, James) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
69 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for Consent under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) for all purposes (including trial). Referred to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/3/2014) (tn) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
70 CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY A US MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Case No Longer Referred to Magistrate Judge) CASE ASSIGNED to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/3/2014) (tn) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
71 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT: IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and among the parties as follows: DOE shall include the language of the attached Exhibit A in a proposed Chancellor's Regulation with an effective date of August 1, 2015, that if enacted, will be binding on DOE. DOE shall post the proposed Chancellor's Regulation for adoption at a meeting of the Panel for Education Policy scheduled to be held prior to June 1, 2015. DOE shall communicate interim guidance on the policies and procedures set forth m Section I of Exhibit A to all principals by January 31, 2015. Within seven days of the vote by the Panel for Educational Policy on the proposed Chancellor's Regulation incorporating the language in Exhibit A, Defendants will notify Plaintiffs that a vote was held and provide Plaintiffs with the text of the adopted regulation. Each school shall have a Crisis Intervention Team. By August 15 of each year, Defendants will provide Plaintiffs a list of the Designated Schools and Designated Sites for the coming year and will provide Plaintiffs with the data used for determining the list. If the Court extends the term of the Stipulation of Settlement and/or orders additional relief, the Court may award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for their noncompliance application, and the following as further set forth herein. The parties shall sign all documents necessary to provide Magistrate Judge James L. Cott with jurisdiction over this matter. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 12/15/2014) (kgo) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
72 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Infant Compromise Motions addressed to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott from Christopher D. Lamb dated December 19, 2014. Document filed by C.J., A. D., K.J., K.P., M.E., N. C. R., I. S., R. M. T., T.H., T. W., Y.P..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
73 ORDER granting 72 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Application granted. Infant Compromise Proposed Orders and supporting papers due by January 9, 2015. (HEREBY ORDERED by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott)(Text Only Order) (Cott, James) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
74 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by T.H.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lamb, Christopher) Modified on 1/9/2015 (db). (Entered: 01/09/2015)
75 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by A. D.(Lamb, Christopher) Modified on 1/9/2015 (db). (Entered: 01/09/2015)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Christopher D. Lamb to RE−FILE Document 74 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . ERROR(S): Supporting Documents are filed separately, each receiving their own document #. (db) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
76 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by R. M. T. (Lamb, Christopher) Modified on 1/9/2015 (db). (Entered: 01/09/2015)
77 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by I. S. (Lamb, Christopher) Modified on 1/9/2015 (db). (Entered: 01/09/2015)
78 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by N. C. R. (Lamb, Christopher) Modified on 1/9/2015 (db). (Entered: 01/09/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 14 of 16

01/09/2015
01/09/2015
01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015

***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Christopher D. Lamb to RE−FILE Document 77 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . 75 MOTION to Approve infant compromise ., 76 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . ERROR(S): Supporting Documents are filed separately, each receiving their own document #. (db) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Christopher D. Lamb to RE−FILE Document 78 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . ERROR(S): Supporting Documents are filed separately, each receiving their own document #. (db) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
79 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by T.H.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
80 DECLARATION of T.H. in Support re: 79 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by T.H.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
81 DECLARATION of Nelson Mar in Support re: 79 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by T.H.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
82 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by T. W..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
83 DECLARATION of T.W. in Support re: 82 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by T. W.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
84 DECLARATION of Nancy Bedard in Support re: 82 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by T. W.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
85 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by M.E..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
86 DECLARATION of M.E. in Support re: 85 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by M.E.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
87 DECLARATION of Nancy Bedard in Support re: 85 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by M.E.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
88 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by N. C. R..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
89 DECLARATION of N.C.R. in Support re: 88 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by N. C. R.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
90 DECLARATION of Nelson Mar in Support re: 88 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by N. C. R.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
91 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by K.J..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
92 DECLARATION of Nelson Mar in Support re: 91 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by K.J.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
93 DECLARATION of K.J. in Support re: 91 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by K.J.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
94 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by Y.P..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
95 DECLARATION of Y.P. in Support re: 94 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by K.J.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
96 DECLARATION of Tara Foster in Support re: 94 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by Y.P.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
97 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by R. M. T..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 15 of 16

01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015 01/09/2015
01/12/2015
01/12/2015 01/12/2015 01/12/2015 01/14/2015

98 DECLARATION of R.M.T. in Support re: 97 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by R. M. T.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
99 DECLARATION of Tara Foster in Support re: 97 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by R. M. T.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
100 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by A. D..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
101 DECLARATION of A.D. in Support re: 100 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by A. D.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
102 DECLARATION of Tara Foster in Support re: 100 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by A. D.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
103 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by I. S..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
104 DECLARATION of I.S. in Support re: 103 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by I. S.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
105 DECLARATION of Nanette Schorr in Support re: 103 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by I. S.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
106 MOTION to Approve infant compromise . Document filed by C.J..(Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
107 AFFIRMATION of C.J. in Support re: 106 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by C.J.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
108 AFFIDAVIT of Christopher D. Lamb in Support re: 106 MOTION to Approve infant compromise .. Document filed by C.J.. (Lamb, Christopher) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
109 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION to Approve Infant Compromise . Document filed by K.P. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of K.P., # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Mariann Meier Wang)(Mullkoff, Daniel) Modified on 1/12/2015 (db). (Entered: 01/09/2015)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Daniel Erik Mullkoff to RE−FILE Document 109 MOTION to Approve Infant Compromise . ERROR(S): Supporting Documents are filed separately, each receiving their own document #. (db) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
110 MOTION to Approve Infant Compromise . Document filed by K.P..(Mullkoff, Daniel) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
111 DECLARATION of Mariann Meier Wang in Support re: 110 MOTION to Approve Infant Compromise .. Document filed by K.P.. (Mullkoff, Daniel) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
112 DECLARATION of K.P. in Support re: 110 MOTION to Approve Infant Compromise .. Document filed by K.P.. (Mullkoff, Daniel) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
113 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 79 Motion to Approve infant compromise; granting 82 Motion to Approve infant compromise; granting 85 Motion to Approve infant compromise; granting 88 Motion to Approve infant compromise; granting 91 Motion to Approve infant compromise; granting 94 Motion to Approve infant compromise; granting 97 Motion to Approve infant compromise; granting 100 Motion to Approve infant compromise; granting 103 Motion to Approve infant compromise; granting 106 Motion to Approve infant compromise; granting 110 Motion to Approve infant compromise. Based on all of the circumstances of this case, I conclude that the proposed settlements to resolve Plaintiffs' damages claims are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Infants. Plaintiffs' motions are therefore granted and the settlements of the Infants' claims are approved. The Clerk is hereby directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 79, 82, 85, 88, 91, 94, 97, 100, 103, 106, and 110. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 1/14/2015) (kko) Modified on 1/14/2015 (kko).

Case: 1:13-cv-8777 As of: 09/23/2017 09:11 PM EDT 16 of 16

01/23/2015 01/26/2015 04/08/2015 04/09/2015 04/28/2015

(Entered: 01/14/2015)
114 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott from Mariann Meier Wang dated 01/23/2015 re: Clarification of Infant Compromise Order. Document filed by K.P..(Mullkoff, Daniel) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
115 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 114 Letter filed by K.P.. ENDORSEMENT: The request to place W.P.'s compensation in a 529 educational savings plan for future use entirely for his benefit is approved. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 1/26/2015) (kgo) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
117 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − FIRST MOTION to Approve . Document filed by I. S..(Schorr, Nanette) Modified on 4/9/2015 (db). (Entered: 04/08/2015)
118 ORDER granting 117 Motion to Approve. Application Granted. The request to place some of the settlement monies (as set forth in the letter) in a special needs trust is approved. (HEREBY ORDERED by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott)(Text Only Order) (Cott, James) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
119 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT REGARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees and costs related to this matter accrued through December 15, 2014, as contemplated by Section III of the December 15, 2014 Settlement Agreement, are hereby resolved and dismissed, with prejudice, and without any fees or costs in excess of the amount specified in paragraph "2" below. 2. The City of New York hereby agrees to pay Plaintiffs' counsel the sum total of SIX HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($613,000.00) for all attorneys' foes and costs related to this matter accrued through December 15, 2014, as contemplated by Section III of the December J 5, 2014 Settlement Agreement. Payment will be distributed in the following amounts: FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($500,000.00) to Legal Services NYC by check made payable to "Legal Services NYC"; and ONE HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($113,000.00) to Cuti Hecker Wang LLP, by check made payable to "Cuti Hecker Wang LLP." 3. In consideration for the payments described in paragraph "2" above, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel agree to the withdrawal and dismissal with prejudice of all claims for attorneys' fees and costs related to this matter accrued through December 15, 2014, and the following as further set forth herein. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 4/28/2015) (kgo) (Entered: 04/28/2015)

 
 Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 19

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------)(

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.

Plaintiffs are children in New York City public schools whose educations

have been forcefully interrupted because their schools have summoned Emergency

Medical Services ("EMS") to have them removed by ambulances even though they were

not in need of emergency medical care. In some instances, EMS personnel insisted on

transporting them to hospitals against the express wishes of their families. As a result,

plaintiff students have not only been detained by school and EMS personnel against

their wills, they have also been traumatized by unnecessary trips to emergency rooms

and deprived ofvaluable instructional time.

2.

Plaintiffs are also the parents of these students. School and EMS

procedures fail to allow parent plaintiffs to determine the nonemergency medical care

for their children. In addition, school and EMS policies and practices cause these

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 2 of 19

children to be detained and then removed against the wishes of parents and guardians. Finally, school and EMS practices cause plaintiff parents to incur fees for ambulance and emergency room services that the plaintiff children did not need and that the families cannot afford.

3.

The plaintiffs' ordeals have been caused by the schools' failure to utilize

the systems already set up-as required by law--for evaluating children with perceived

disabilities, including behavioral issues, in addition to the schools' pattern and practice

of instead using EMS to remove students from their schools and forcing them to undergo

emergency medical evaluations in nonemergency situations. Plaintiffstudents, and their

families, remain at risk so long as these patterns and practices persist. At the same time,

the emergency resources ofNew York City are misdirected at children who are not

facing any emergency.

4.

Plaintiffs ask this Court to find that defendants' conduct has violated their

rights under federal statutory and Constitutional law, the New York State Constitution,

and the New York City Human Rights Law; to enjoin defendants from continuing to

violate plaintiffs' rights; and to award plaintiffs' damages for the violation of their

rights.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5.

This court has subject matter jurisdiction over federal claims pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (a)(4), and 1337. A cause of action for the federal

constitutional claims is created by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Federal claims raised here include

claims arising from the U.S. Constitution, the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act ("IDEA"), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act

("ADA").

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 3 of 19

6.

This court has supplemental jurisdiction over state claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1367.

7.

Declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a)

and Rules 57 and 65 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

8. Venue is proper in the Southern District ofNew York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

Plaintiffs

PARTIES

9.

Although known to defendants, plaintiffs are named in this complaint

using only their initials in order to preserve the privacy guaranteed the plaintiff children

by the IDEA, as well as by Family Educational Rights Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232(g)

and 34 C.F.R. § 99.

10. New York

PlaintiffT.H. is the parent of minor child J.H. and resides in the Bronx,

11 . Plaintiff J.H. is six years old and resides in the Bronx, New York. 12. PlaintiffW.P. is five years old and resides in New York, New York. 13. PlaintiffK.J. is the parent of minor child J.R. and resides in the New York, New York.

14. Plaintiff J.R. is five years old and resides in the New York, New York. 15. PlaintiffC.J. is the parent of minor child J.M. and resides in the New York, New York.

16. Plaintiff J.M is fifteen years old and resides in the Bronx, New York.
17. __:.P:...:l=al.:.n::.::tiff::::..Y.:.:.::.P..:..::is:.:t::.:h:=.e.t:p.=ar:.:e.::n:..to.:::.:f:.:m:::::in:.::o:.:.r.;:;c::hi::;ld:;.:..N:.:.:.R:..:.:.a;n=d;. :r. ;:;es:;.: i=de;:; :s:;. .:in; ; . . ;Q:L.;u; .;e~e:.: ns: .1,______,/
New York.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 4 of 19

18. PlaintiffN.R. is six years old and resides in Queens, New York. 19. PlaintiffM.E is the parent of minor child D.E. and resides in New York City, New York.

20. York.

PlaintiffD.E. is seven years old and resides in New York City, New

Defendants

21. Defendant Dennis Walcott is the chancellor of the New York City Department of Education ("NYCDOE") and is responsible for its operation. Defendant Walcott has the power and duty to perform any duty imposed upon the NYCDOE, including the operation of all general education and special education programs and services. He is sued in his official capacity. At all times relevant to the events described herein, Defendant Walcott acted under color oflaw of the State ofNew York and in his capacity as an agent, servant, and employee of defendant New York City and/or NYCDOE, and within the scope of his employment as such.
22. Defendant New York City Department of Education is responsible for operating New York City's public schools, which are attended by approximately 1.1 million students. NYCDOE maintains its principal place of business at 52 Chambers Street in New York County. NYCDOE receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding each year, including approximately $600 million in funding under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Defendants Dennis Walcott and NYCDOE are collectively referred to as ''NYCDOE" herein.
23. Defendant the City ofNew York is a municipal corporation duly incorporated and existing pursuant to the laws of the State ofNew York. It is authorized under the laws of the State ofNew York to maintain a fire department, the "FDNY",

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 5 of 19
which acts as its agent in the area of Emergency Medical Services and for which it is ultimately responsible, In 2013, the FDNY received over $90 million in federal funding.
24. Defendant Salvatore J. Cassano is the commissioner of the FDNY and is responsible for its operations, including its operation of EMS. As FDNY Commissioner, Defendant Cassano has the power and duty to perform any duty imposed upon the FDNY, including the training of Emergency Medical Technicians ("EMT") responding to calls, and the implementation of regulations and rules governing EMT' s and how they respond to calls, including calls to schools. He is sued in his official capacity. At all times relevant to the events described herein, Defendant Cassano acted under color of law of the State ofNew York and in his capacity as an agent, servant, and employee of defendant New York City and/or the FDNY, and within the scope of his employment as such.
25. Defendants John/Jane Doe #'s 1-18 are and/or were, at all times relevant herein Emergency Medical Technicians and employees and agents of the FDNY. At all times relevant to the events described herein, Defendants John/Jane Does #'s 1-18 acted under color oflaw of the State ofNew York and in their capacities as agents, servants, and employees of defendant New York City and/or FDNY, and within the scope of their employment as such. John/Jane Doe #'s 1 and 2 were responsible for removing Plaintiff J.H. from his school against his mother's wishes on November 13, 2012. John/Jane Doe #'s 3 and 4 were responsible for removing Plaintiff J.H. from his school against his mother's wishes on November 1, 2013. John/Jane Doe #'s 5 and 6 were responsible for removing Plaintiff J.R. from his school against his family's wishes on April 29, 2013. John/Jane Doe #'s 7 and 8 were responsible for removing Plaintiff J.R. from his school

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 6 of 19
against his mother's wishes on May 15,2013. John/Jane Doe #'s 9 and 10 were responsible for removing PlaintiffN.R. from his school against his family's wishes on October 22, 2012. John/Jane Doe's 11 and 12 were responsible from removing Plaintiff D.E. from his school against his mother's wishes on September 27, 2011. John/Jane Doe #'s 13 and 14 were responsible for removing PlaintiffD.E. from his school against his family's wishes on October 6, 2011. John/Jane Doe #'s 15 and 16 were responsible for removing PlaintiffD.E. from his school against his mother's wishes on October 12, 2011. John/Jane Doe #'s 17 and 18 were responsible for removing PlaintiffD.E. against his mother's wishes on November 9, 2011.
JURY DEMAND 26. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this action on each and every one of their claims.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK The United States Constitution
27. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment and provides that persons shall not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures.
28. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process.
29. One of the liberties protected by the due process clause is the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children, including the right to authorize and direct the medical care given to their children.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 7 of 19
30. The due process clause also protects the fundamental liberty interest of both parents and children not be forcibly separated from each other, even temporarily, without due process. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
31. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. · §1400 et seq., governs how states and localities provide early intervention, special education, and related services to children with disabilities.
32. IDEA defines a child with a disability as "a child (i) with intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this chapter as "emotional disturbance"), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and (ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services." 20 U.S.C. §1401(3)(A).
33 . Under IDEA, states must make available "a free appropriate public education . .. to all children with disabilities residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive, including children with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from school." 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(1)(A).
34. IDEA defines "free and appropriate education" as: "special education and related services that (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(d) of this title." 20
u.s.c. §1401(9).

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 8 of 19
35. The IDEA also mandates that "removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occur[] only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 20 U.S.C §1412(a) (5)(A).
36. Under the Child Find requirements of the IDEA, schools districts have an affirmative duty to locate, identify and evaluate students who may require special education programs or services. 20 U.S.C §1412(a)(3).
37. Either a parent or guardian or a school can make a referral to have a child evaluated for special education supports and services in New York State. 20 U.S.C. §1414 (a)(l)(B); 34 C.F.R. §300.301(b); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.4(a). Schools must obtain a parent's informed consent before performing an evaluation. 34 CFR § 300.300.
38. As part of an initial evaluation and subsequent reevaluations, each school district is required to use "a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child" that may assist the district in determining if the child is entitled to special education services and what those services should be. 20 U.S.C. §1414 (b)(2); 34 C.F.R. §300.304 (b).
39. The school district is also required to assess the child in "all areas related to the suspected disability," including, if appropriate, the emotional status of a child and how behavioral factors impact the child. 20 U.S.C. §1414 (b)(3); 34 C.F.R. §300.304 (b)(4).
40. Following an evaluation in all areas of suspected disability, a meeting must be scheduled on written notice to the parent with a multidisciplinary team to

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 9 of 19
determine if the student meets a classification under the IDEA and to develop an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the child. 20 U.S.C. §1414 (b)(4) and (5); 34 C.P.R. §300.306.
41. Parents are entitled to participate in an annual review of the IEP, to discuss and update the IEP and if appropriate to revise the programs, services and supports. 20 U.S.C. §1414 (d)(4); 34 C.P.R. §300.324(b).
42. Students have the right to be educated in the least restrictive environment with appropriate supports and services. 20 U.S.C. §1412 (a)(5) and (5); 34 C.P.R. §300.114 .
43. For a child exhibiting behavioral issues that impact the student's educational process, the school district must conduct appropriate assessments such as a functional behavior assessment (FBA) to determine the appropriate services to address those behaviors. In addition, the school district should develop a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) on notice to and with the participation of the parent, to address the behavioral issues. 20 U.S.C. 1415 (k); 34 C.P.R. §300.530(f). The Rehabilitation Act
44. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs receiving federal financial assistance. 29 U.S.C. §701 et seq.
45. Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act, codified at 29 U.S.C. §794, mandates that ''No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ...
"

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 10 of 19
46. The definition of"individual with a disability" for the purposes of Section 504 is cross-referenced to the definition found in the Americans with Disabilities Act: an individual with a disability is a person with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; with a record of such an impairment; or who is regarded as having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. §12102(1).
47. The definition of"program or activity" for the purposes of Section 504 includes all of the operations of both "a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality ofa State or of a local goverrunent" and "a local educational agency (as defined in section 7801 of title 20), system of vocational education, or other school system." 29 U.S.C. §794(b).
48. Local educational agency is defined in 20 U.S.C. §7801 as "a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools."
49. 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(a) requires that recipients of federal funds who operate elementary or secondary schools must "provide a free appropriate public education to each qualified handicapped person who is in the recipient's jurisdiction, regardless ofthe nature or severity of the person's handicap."

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 11 of 19
50. Under 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(d), a recipient "may not exclude any qualified handicapped person from a public elementary or secondary education . . .."
51. Under 34 C.F.R. § 104.34(a), a recipient "shall provide for the education of each qualified handicapped person in its jurisdiction with persons who are not handicapped to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the handicapped person. A recipient shall place a handicapped person in the regular educational environment operated by the recipient unless it is demonstrated by the recipient that the education of the person in the regular environment with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." The Americans with Disabilities Act
52. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq., prohibits discrimination based upon disability by public entities.
53. 42 U.S.C. §12132 makes it unlawful for a qualified individual with a disability, by reason of such disability, to be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
54. Disability under the ADA is defmed as a physical or mental irnpainnent that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. §12102(1).
55. A public entity is defined by the ADA as, among other things, any State or local government or any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government. 42 U.S.C. §12131(1).
56. The term "qualified individual with a disability" is defined as an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules,

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 12 of 19
policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity." 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
57. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(3) bars public entities from utilizing methods of administration that "have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability."
58. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d) requires public entities to "administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities."
59. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(h) prohibits public entities from imposing safety requirements based on "mere speculation, stereotypes or generalizations abou( individuals with disabilities." New York State Constitution
60. Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution guarantees the right of people to free of unreasonable searches and seizures. New York City Human Rights Law
61. Pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public accommodation because of the actual or perceived . . . disability to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof ... ." Administrative Code of the City ofNew York §8-107(4)(a).

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 13 of 19
62. The term '"place or provider of public accommodation' ... include(s] providers, whether licensed or unlicensed, of goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind, and places, whether licensed or unlicensed, where goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind are extended, offered, sold or otherwise made available." Administrative Code ofthe City ofNew York §8-102(9).
63. A private cause of action for violations of the New York City Human Rights Law is created by Administrative Code of the City ofNew York §8-502.
64. Administrative Code ofthe City ofNew York §8-130 states that the Human Rights Law should be construed "liberally for the accomplishment of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal or New York State civil and human rights laws, including those laws with provisions comparably-worded to provisions of this title have been so construed." DOE Chancellor's Regulations
65. Defendant Walcott and his predecessors have issued "Chancellor's Regulations" to provide guidance to DOE personnel regarding DOE policies.
66. Each school must maintain a "school safety plan" detailing the school's policy regarding possible emergency situations. Chancellor's Regulation A-414.
67. Chancellor's Regulation A-412, Security and the Schools, requires and authorizes DOE personnel to call 911 when a student requires immediate medical attention. The principal must be contacted immediately after the 911 call and must proceed to the scene with a trained medical professional. The student's parent must also be notified immediately. If the parent is not present when the ambulance arrives, a school employee must accompany the student to the emergency room.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 14 of 19

68. Chancellor's Regulation A-701, School Health Services, also requires and authorizes DOE personnel to call 911 when a student requires immediate medical attention, mandates that the student's parent be called, and mandates that a school employee accompany the student to the emergency room if the parent is not present when the ambulance arrives.

69. Chancellor's Regulation A-443, Student Discipline Process, requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any student can be barred from attending their school.

FDNY Regulations
70. The FDNY has issued regulations to provide guidance to its EMS personnel regarding interactions with minors.
71. Section 106-05 ofthe FDNY EMS Operating Guide Procedures, dated March 15, 1999, describes the protocol for the "Treatment & Transport of a Minor from the Scene of an Assignment."

72. Section 106-05 authorizes transportation of minors by EMS over a parent's objection only when the minor has a life-threatening condition or injury and it is apparent that even a minor delay will jeopardize the life or health of the minor.

Background

STATEMENT OF FACTS

73. The problem of abuse of emergency medical services by public schools is well-known to the city, NYCDOE, and the commissioner defendants. For almost a decade, advocates and medical practitioners have raised concerns about the improper use of emergency medical services to forcibly remove children from public schools. See, e.g., New York Times SchoolBook, Sept. 23,2013 (quoting an emergency room

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 15 of 19
physician stating "[i]t feels like we are being used as a dumping ground by the schools"); Hospitals Say City Schools Use them as a Cure-All, New York Times, May 18, 2004 (quoting an emergency room physician as stating"[ s]o many ofthe school referrals are 'dumps' of misbehaving children"); The New Craze Schools Using ERs as Dumping Ground Educators Shuttling Surly Students to City 's White Coats, Daily News, May 17, 2004 (quoting the head of one hospital's Comprehensive Emergency Services as stating "Schools are overcrowded, teachers overworked, so they send us kids they just don't want to deal with -or don't know how to deal with them. But the kids aren't having a mental crisis," and quoting a Director of Pediatric Psychiatry as saying "A trip to the emergency room, even if it is done well, is the worst introduction to mental health services you can give a child.").
74. In response to the growing number ofstudents being sent to hospital emergency rooms in seemingly non-urgent situations, the New York City Council Education and Mental Health Committees conducted a public hearing to investigate this issue on May 1, 2012.
75. The New York City Public Advocate's Office, under Mayor-Elect de Blasio, also raised concerns over the number of students removed from schools to hospital emergency rooms for behavioral issues. See, e.g., Public Advocate Seeks Data on Children Sent to ER, Wall Street Journal, (April 9, 2013) (stating that "schools are calling 911 to deal with behavioral outbursts and thousands of schoolchildren are being sent to hospitals at their parents' expense").

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 16 of 19

76. Data maintained by the defendants further demonstrates that the practice of removing children from the public schools by ambulance because of difficult or disruptive behaviors is both longstanding and widespread.

77.

According to Fire Department data obtained by plaintiffs' counsel

through the Freedom of Information Law, the FDNY responded to approximately

18,000 emergency calls for an emotionally disturbed person from New York City school

locations from 2005 through 2010 for an average of almost 3,000 calls per calendar year.

The 18,000 calls originated from over 1,000 schools from across all five boroughs.

78. The FDNY data is consistent with NYCDOE data, also obtained by

plaintiffs counsel through the Freedom oflnformation Law, which shows that in each

school year from 2009-2010 through 2011-2012, over 3,000 calls were made to EMS

due to alleged disruptive behaviors. Over those three school years, the number of calls

to EMS by NYC public schools to respond to students with alleged disruptive behaviors

increased each year. By 2011-2012, over 3,600 calls were made to EMS by NYC public

schools to respond to alleged disruptive behaviors by students. These data also show that

the calls are made from hundreds of schools each year in all five boroughs.

79. Upon information and belief, the majority of students removed from New

York City public schools by EMS are students with disabilities or students perceived as

having a disability.

J.H.

80. Plaintiff J.H. is now six years old. He began attending kindergarten at Grant Avenue Elementary School in the Bronx in September 2012, when he was five. He is now in the first grade. He lives with his mother, T.H., and his eight year old

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 17 of 19
brother and his thirteen year old sister in the Bronx. J.H. has or is perceived by NYCDOE to have a disability.
81 . On October 26, 2012, the school called Ms. H. and told her that an ambulance had been called for her son and that she should come to the school immediately. When Ms. H. asked what was going on, she was told it would be explained when she got to the school.
82. When Ms. H. arrived at the school, she was told that J.H. had already been taken to Lincoln Hospital. When she asked why her son had been taken to the hospital, a staff member told her that he had been acting up and that there had been no other way to control him, but did not further explain what had happened. While she was at the school, she was given a form for the hospital to sign before J.H. could return to school.
83. Ms. H. then removed her older son, T.H. , from his class at Grant Avenue Elementary because she was concerned she would not return in time for his dismissal at the end of the school day. Ms. H. and T.H. rushed to the emergency room at Lincoln Hospital, where she found J.H. sitting calmly with a teacher's aide. The aide could not or would not say what had happened at the school. When Ms. H. asked J.H. what happened, he told her, "They were bothering me." According to hospital records, J.H. told hospital staff that he got into a fight with a security guard at the school when he wanted to go back to music class when he was not supposed to. Those records also say that throughout his interview with hospital staff J.H. was ''well-behaved and easily redirected by prompts from his mother."

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 18 of 19
84. When Ms. H. tried to leave the emergency room with J.H., a nurse told her that she could not leave until three different staff members had met with J.H.
85. Ms. H. spent several hours in the emergency room with J.H. while he was seen by the three staff members who the hospital wanted to see him. Ms. H. desperately wanted to leave the hospital so she could pick up her daughter from school. She had no way to contact her daughter, who she knew did not have a key and would not be able to get into their apartment. She was concerned for her daughter's safety because they live in an unsafe neighborhood. The hospital would not let her leave until she received the discharge papers. When she tried to leave, hospital staff called the police and the police physically blocked her from leaving the hospital. It took about an hour from the time she tried to leave until she got the discharge papers and was finally permitted to leave.
86. By the time Ms. H., T.H. and J.H. left the hospital it was too late to pick up J.H.'s sister from school. She was waiting in their building, locked out of the apartment.
87. On the next school day, Ms. H. brought J.H. to school and gave the school the form from the hospital. She was given no written incident report for the October 26 incident and was told nothing more than that the school's staff had been unable to calm him down and that he had been jumping, running around, and hitting people.
88. On November 13, 2012, the school again phoned Ms. H. and told her an ambulance had been called for her son. Ms. H. rushed to the school. This time, she arrived at the school prior to J.H.'s being removed by EMS. She found him between a window gate and a closed window in a stairwell surrounded by close to ten adults

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 19 of 19
including EMS personnel, police, and school employees. She coaxed him into her arms, but when she said she wanted to bring him home, she was told by school employees and by EMS staff that he had to be taken to the hospital.
89. Ms. H. again removed T.H. from class so he could accompany her and J.H. to the hospital. Ms. H. was again concerned that she would not be able to return to Grant Avenue Elementary in time for dismissal for T.H.
90. Ms. H. and T.H. accompanied J.H. to Lincoln Hospital in the ambulance and this time the hospital signed the paperwork to permit J.H. to return to school and released him in less than an hour. Then they went home. According to hospital records, J.H. was referred to the hospital for evaluation for "not listening" and because he "refused to sit on a rug."
91. Again, by the time they were permitted to leave the hospital, J.H.'s sister was home from school, locked out of the apartment, and Ms. H. was unable to contact her. Because of these repeated incidents and in fear for her daughter's safety, she bought her daughter a cell phone so that they could contact each other if Ms. H. had to go to the hospital with J.H. again.
92. On the next school day, Ms. H. brought J.H. to school and gave the school the form from the hospital. She was given no written incident report regarding what had happened on November 13 and was told only that he had been running, jumping around, and hitting people.
93. After the November 13 incident, Ms. H. asked for and received permission to observe her son at school without his knowledge. She did so on several occasions and never saw him engage in aggressive or out-of-control behavior. Ms. H.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 19
wanted to try moving J.H. to another teacher to see if that would help with the behavior problems, but the school would not permit J.H. to move, even though several other children had already been moved out of his classroom.
94. On December 12, 2012, the school again called Ms. H. to tell her they had called EMS to take J.H. to the hospital. Ms. H. rushed to the school. When she got there, she was told that J.H. had already been taken to Lincoln Hospital by ambulance.
95. Ms. H. rushed to Lincoln Hospital, but when she arrived there, she was told that her son was not there. She frantically called the school, worried that the ambulance might have been in an accident, and she was told that her son had actually been taken to St. Barnabas Hospital. It took her a long time to get to the correct hospital because she did not have money for a cab and had to take the bus to both hospitals. She had to call a friend from Lincoln Hospital for directions because she did not know where St. Barnabas Hospital was or which bus to take to get there.
96. At St. Barnabas, she found J.H. in a psychiatric ward with six adults. He had been changed out of his clothes and into hospital-issued pajamas: a pajama shirt, pajama pants, and slipper socks. A person from the school was there with him.
97. According to hospital records, the aide told emergency room staff that J.H. had been "out of control at school. They didn't know what to do." The same records state that J.H. was "playful" and "smiling" at the hospital.
98. After spending about an hour at the hospital, Ms. H. was permitted to bring J.H. home. Ms. H. was in a rush to leave the hospital because she was worried about leaving in time to pick up T.H. from school.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 2 of 19

99. On the next school day, Ms. H. accompanied J.H. to school and gave the school staff the necessary paperwork from the hospital. Again, she was given no written incident report regarding what had happened on December 12. She was told only that J.H. had not been listening, ran out of the classroom, and hit students and teachers.
100. On December 14, 201 2, the school again called Ms. H and told her that they had called an ambulance for J. H. When she got to the school, she found J.H. outside, strapped down to a stretcher wearing only at-shirt on the cold December day. All of the staff members were wearing coats but J.H. was strapped to the stretcher crying without any coat or sweater. Ms. H. gave J .H. her coat. She became very upset at the school staff and began crying herself. As she prepared to ride in the ambulance with J .H. to the hospital, she pulled T.H. out of school again because she was worried that she would not be able to return in time to pick him up from school. T.H. was at lunch at that time, so they brought his lunch with them and also brought J.H.'s lunch to the ambulance. Ms. H., J.H., and T.H. all rode together in the ambulance to Lincoln Hospital.

101. According to hospital notes, J.H. was sent to the hospital because he had hit and kicked his teacher after she drew on his paper when he did not want her to. He told the hospital staff that his teacher does not like him and that she makes him angry a lot. The notes also indicate that J.H. was "well-behaved and easily redirected by prompts from his mother."

102.

After Ms. H., J.H., and T.H. spent an hour or two in the

emergency room, she was given the signed clearance form she needed to give to the

school and was permitted to take J .H. home.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 3 of 19
103. On the next school day, Ms. H. brought J.H. to school and gave the school the form from the hospital. She was given no written incident report regarding what had happened on December 14 and was told nothing more than the school's staff had been unable to calm him down after he became upset over something his teacher did.
104. School staffstopped calling EMS for J.H. after an attorney began advocating on Ms. H. and J.H.' s behalf in late December 2012.The school instead required Ms. H. to pick J .H. up early almost every day for about a month. School staff then required J.H. to attend school on a part-time schedule and J.H. only attended school untilll :00 a.m. for the rest of the 2012-2013 school year. School staff also prohibited him from attending field trips unless accompanied by Ms. H.
105. Ms. H. lost her job as a night guard at a homeless shelter. Ms. H. suffered poor work performance as a result of the nearly daily calls from school officials regarding J.H.'s behavior. Unable to get adequate sleep during the morning hours, she repeatedly was too tired to stay awake at work. She then went on unemployment, went into arrears with her rent and currently is facing eviction She then got a job as a customer service representative in August 2013 but had to leave the job a month later partly due to multiple appointments she has to attend to regarding the eviction proceedings. She has also received bills from the hospitals and from EMS, which she has no way to pay.
106. Ms. H. consented to have J.H. evaluated by the NYCDOE for special education services in November 2012. The NYCDOE administered a psychological and

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 4 of 19
an educational evaluation for J.H. but never conducted a psychiatric evaluation as part of their initial evaluation.
107. Upon information and belief, while awaiting the completion of the special education evaluation process, school officials did not provide J.H. with any formal services or accommodations to address J.H. ' s behaviors.
108. On January 18, 2013, an IEP meeting was held at the school and J.H. was found to be eligible for special education services and J.H. was given a classification of emotional disturbance. For the 2013-2014 school year, J.H. is enrolled in a 12:1:1 special class program at Grant Avenue Elementary School.
109. On or about November 1, 2013, school officials from Grant Avenue Elementary School called Ms. H. and advised her that J.H. was acting out and Ms. H. needed to go to the school right away. Ms. H. was also told that J.H. was in the guidance counselor's office.
110. Ms. H. proceeded to the school right after the phone call. Upon arriving at the school, Ms. H. proceeded to the guidance counselor's office where she found her son J.H. being physically held by the school safety agent. Ms. H. asked the school safety agent to let J.H. go and she picked him up. Ms. H. spoke to the school safety agent who advised her that J.H. would be sent to the emergency room. Ms. H. asked school staff why EMS was called if the school officials knew she was on her way to the school. The school safety agent interjected and stated that it was her decision to call EMS.
111 . When EMS arrived, Ms. H. asked the EMT's if they had to take J.H. and she was told J.H. had to go to the hospital. Ms. H. then accompanied J.H. to Lincoln Hospital along with T.H., whom she removed from school early again. Once at the

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 5 of 19
hospital, the nurse gave Ms. H. a document to sign to consent to the evaluation of J.H..
Ms. H. declined to sign it because she did not believe J.H. needed an evaluation at that time and left the hospital with her sons.
112. J.H. received an in-school suspension as a result of this incident but returned to school on the next school day. Ms. H. never received any documents related to the incident on November 1, 2013.
113. As a result of the school's practice of repeatedly having J.H. removed by EMS, J.H. is no longer eager to go to school, is afraid of and dislikes the police, and is afraid of going to the hospital. W.P.
114. W.P. is five years old and resides in Manhattan with his parents, K.P. and G.P. and his newborn brother. Since September 9, 2013, he has attended kindergarten at NEST+M School (''NEST") in Manhattan. W.P. has or is perceived by NYDOE as having a disability.
115. On Friday, September 20, 2013, K.P. received a telephone call from the assistant principal for the Lower School. Without providing any details or explanation, the assistant principal informed K.P. that the school was unable to control W.P.'s behavior and that they had called 911 to transport W.P. to the emergency room. K.P., who works in midtown Manhattan and at the time was nine months pregnant, was told she had 10-20 minutes to get to the school before EMS would take W.P. to the hospital. K.P. pleaded with the school to wait for her arrival before having W.P. removed. The school insisted they would not wait.
116. K.P. alerted her husband, G.P., to the situation, and G.P. was able to reach the school before W.P. had been taken to the hospital. Upon G.P.'s arrival at

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 6 of 19
NEST, he found W.P. sitting calmly and quietly in the main school office with his feet up on a chair. Five police officers stood at the entrance to the office. G.P. immediately asked the police officers to call off the request for EMS.
117. G.P. met with the assistant principal and the principal in the principal's office to discuss the incident. G.P. was informed that W.P. had been "running around and almost broke a table," and was like a "mini Hulk." W.P.'s teacher and the school's guidance counselor subsequently joined the conversation in the principal's office. The school representatives explained to G.P. that W.P. had been pulled out of class and was unable to "calm down." The assistant principal informed G.P. that in such situations, when there is allegedly concern for the child's safety or the safety of others, it is the school's policy to call EMS. The assistant principal described the policy in front of the principal, who nodded in agreement. G.P. has since had at least one additional conversation in which this policy was reiterated by other school representatives. At times, school officials also stated that it is their policy to call the security guard, who in turn has been trained to call EMS.
118. Despite W.P.'s calm demeanor, G.P. decided to take W.P. home for the rest of the day. G.P. was able to coax an explanation from W.P. for his behavior, which evidently resulted from a simple disagreement with another student on the playground who had refused to return a ball.
119. Two weeks later, in the midst of K.P.'s giving birth to W.P. 's brother by caesarian section, G.P. received a message that the school had again called EMS to remove W.P. from school. After the birth of their new son, G.P. called the school and spoke to a police officer who was present at the school. At this point, G.P. was told that

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 7 of 19
W.P. was sitting calmly in the office, and G.P. informed the police officer again that he did not want W.P. to be removed by EMS. G.P. informed both the police officer and the assistant principal that his mother-in-law would arrive shortly at the school, since he was at the hospital with his wife, who had just given birth.
120. K.P. 'smother arrived at NEST within twenty minutes, but W.P. had nonetheless already been taken to the Beth Israel emergency room, apparently by police officers. K.P.'s mother rushed to the hospital and reached W.P. before he had been formally admitted. When she found him, W.P. was sitting quietly with two police officers and a paraprofessional from NEST who had accompanied him to the hospital.
121 . After the October 3 incident, K.P. 's mother volunteered to spend time at NEST with W.P. for a few days in the hope that the school would avoid repeating such drastic measures.
122. On October 16, 2013, NEST's guidance counselor again called G.P. to inform him that the school had once again called EMS to remove W.P. G.P. contacted K.P., who rushed to the school with her two-week-old son. Upon her arrival, K.P. found W.P. calmly sitting at a table with the principal and three police officers in the office.
123. K.P. requested immediately that the police officers call off the request for EMS; however, the ambulance arrived at the school nonetheless. K.P. insisted that her calm child need not be transported to the hospital and signed a release form at EMS' request. At K.P. ' s suggestion, the principal allowed W.P., who had been sitting calmly, to rejoin his class.
124. Despite multiple meetings with NEST administrators since the beginning of the school year about how to address W.P.'s behavioral issues, the school initiated no

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 8 of 19
formal evaluation process until K.P. and G.P. submitted a formal written request for an IEP process on October 14, 2013. Only then did NEST appear to have a social worker assigned to work on pursuing an evaluation for W.P. Over the course of the past two months, K.P. and G.P. have spent considerable resources on private evaluations ofW.P., as well as training of school staff.
125. NEST's excessive and reflexively dramatic response to W.P.'s behavioral problems has created a situation in which K.P. and G.P. live in fear that the next phone call will be notification that their frightened five-year-old son has been taken to the hospital by EMS or the police because he had some difficulty in the classroom. W.P. himself has expressed his worries that the police might take him away again. J.R.
126. J.R. is a five year old first grade student currently attending Public School 149 in Manhattan. He lives with his mother, K.J., and grandmother, L.J., in Manhattan. J.R. has or is perceived by NYCDOE to have a disability.
127. K.J. initially enrolled J.R. in kindergarten at PS 149 in January 2013. Prior to attending PS 149, J.R. attended a charter school.
128. Soon after K.J. enrolled J.R. at PS 149, K.J. began to receive almost daily telephone calls from school staff at PS 149 regarding 1.R.'s behavior. Most often, staff from PS 149 stated that J.R. was unfocused, not on task and acting up because he did not want to be in school. Often, school staff requested that K.J. pick up J.R. and bring him home prior to dismissal.
129. If school staff were unable to reach K.J. by phone, they would call K.J.'s mother, L.J. On a number of occasions, K.J. and L.J. were told that if they did not come

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 9 of 19
to pick up J.R. immediately, the school would call an ambulance to take J.R. to an emergency room.
130. On one occasion, sometime between January 2013 and April2013, school staff contacted K.J. advising her that an ambulance had been called for J.R. because he was acting out. K.J. could not leave work immediately and arranged for L.J. to go to the school in response to the phone call. L.J. arrived at the school before the ambulance and convinced school staff to allow J.R. to go home with her.
131. On April29, 2013, J.R. was involved in an incident at PS 149. He became upset after his teacher grabbed his hand during recess. He began to scream, jump on desks and throw himself against lockers.
132. Staff at PS 149 called 911 and also contacted K.J. by telephone to advise her that they had called an ambulance for J.R. K.J. was advised by school officials that J.R. could not return to the school until he was evaluated at the hospital. Because K.J. was at work, she could not go immediately to the school. Instead, she contacted J.R.'s father, H.R. He and L.J. then both proceeded to the school.
133. L.J. arrived at school before H.R. and noticed that police officers and emergency medical technicians were all around J .R., were touching him, and had him sitting on the floor. L.J. asked the officers and technicians to get their hands off him. L.J. was then able to calm J.R. down. L.J. stated that she was going to take him home. School staff, the police officers and the emergency medical technicians all stated that J.R. had to go to the hospital. They stated that once an ambulance has been called to a school, the student has to go to the hospital.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 10 of 19
134. H.R. then arrived at the school and he accompanied J.R. to Mount Sinai Hospital in the ambulance. L.J. had to return to work and did not accompany them to the hospital.
135. J.R. was admitted to the emergency room at Mt. Sinai at 12:45 p.m. The treating physician noted that officials at PS 149 had called EMS because they could not control his behavior and felt he needed an evaluation.
136. When J.R. met with the doctor, he was sitting calmly and said he was no longer angry. He said that when he is very upset, he throws tantrums. He said he did not want to hurt himself or anyone else. The doctors diagnosed J.R. with disruptive behavior disorder and discharged him at 2:51p.m. His discharge plan stated that he could return to normal daily activities and his parents were given referrals for him to outpatient mental health services.
137. After this incident, K.J. wanted to find outpatient psychiatric services for J.R., but medical insurance issues prevented her from arranging an initial intake appointment for two months. Eventually, K.J. secured an initial appointment with a psychiatrist. However K.J. was concerned that the doctor immediately wanted to prescribe medication for J.R. without considering other options and decided to seek treatment elsewhere.
138. As a result of the incident on April29, 2013, PS 149 issued an out of school suspension to J.R. He was sent toPS 144 in Manhattan for his suspension. ·
139. On May 9, 2013, school staff from PS 144 contacted K.J. and advised her that J.R. was having an outburst. K.J. advised them that L.J. was going to the school
to pick up J.R. Soon thereafter school officials then called back and stated that J .R. was

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 11 of 19
being transported to the hospital. K.J. asked if they could delay sending J.R. to the hospital until she arrived there because she was unable to leave work immediately and the school official said no. L.J. arrived at PS 144 just as the emergency medical technicians were escorting J.R. out of the building. L.J. did not attempt to request that J.R. be allowed to go home with her because she felt the EMT's and the police would not allow her.
140. J.R. was admitted to the emergency department at Mount Sinai Hospital
at 1:35 p.m. According to hospital records, he was calm, appeared well and was in no distress. The records state that J.R. got in trouble at school for running in the hall with
another boy and was forced to sit at the "bad" table in the cafeteria. J.R. then got in trouble for standing up when he was not supposed to and was sent to the principal's office where he became angrier and acted out by hitting staff, yelling kicking, and trying to run away. The records also state that J.R. told an emergency medical technician that he wanted to stab her. According to his grandmother, J.R. said this in response to the EMT stating that J.R. was a "bad kid."
141. J.R. was discharged at 3:41p.m., a little over two hours after he was admitted. The discharge documents noted that he was diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorder, not otherwise specified, and was cleared to return to normal activities.
142. On May 15, 2013, after J.R. had completed his suspension at PS 144 and had returned to PS 149, K.J. was advised by staff at PS 149 that J .R. had been involved in another incident. She was told that J.R. had climbed on a cabinet during an outburst. The school informed her that J.R. would be sent to the hospital. K.J. contacted her

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 12 of 19
brother S.J. and he was able to go toPS 149 right away. K.J. asked school officials to release J.R. to S.J., but school officials denied K.J. 's request.
143. K.J. left work early in order to respond to the situation at PS 149. When she arrived at PS 149, K.J. observed EMS technicians and police officers with her son in addition to school staff. The EMS technicians, the police officers and school staff all told K.J. that J.R. had no other option than to go to the hospital. K.J. did not attempt to ask if she could take her son home because the police, school staff, and EMT's all made it clear on this occasion and on prior occasions that he had to be transported to the hospital.
144. EMS again transported J.R. to the emergency department at Mount Sinai where he arrived at 4:20p.m. The treating physician noted that J.R. was calm and cooperative during his interview. J.R. denied being depressed, suicidal or homicidal. J.R. was unable to explain why he was aggressive at school but "nodded" in agreement that he did not want to be aggressive again.
145. The treating physician at Mount Sinai administered a violence risk assessment to J.R. and determined there was a low risk of violence. K.J. was advised to follow up with outpatient child psychiatry for J.R. 's disruptive behavior disorder. J.R. was discharged at 7:51 p.m.
146. In or about the middle of May 2013, PS 149 fmally initiated an evaluation of J.R. to determine his eligibility for special education services. On June 21, 2013, an IEP team met and determined that J.R. was eligible for special education services. J.R. was assigned a classification of emotional disturbance. He has been assigned to a special class with a small student to staff ratio, but the school has

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 13 of 19
continued to respond inappropriately to J.R. 's behavioral problems. As recently as November 18,2013, K.J. was again told that if she did not pick up J.R. as soon as possible, PS 149 would call for an ambulance to transport J.R. to an emergency room,
147. K.J. often receives phone calls from PS 149 at work regarding J.R.'s behavior issues. The calls have caused K.J. to experience significant stress, anxiety and depression which affected her work performance. K.J. was suspended by her employer in May 2013 for poor work performance and has had to change her work schedule repeatedly to be able to respond to the constant calls from PS 149.
J.M. 148. Plaintiff J.M. is fifteen years old and is in the tenth grade at Astor
Collegiate Academy in the Bronx. He lives with his mother, C.J., in the Bronx. He was previously enrolled at Lehman High School ("Lehman") from the beginning of ninth grade through March 2013.
149. J.M. was diagnosed with ADHD when he was five. In July 2012, his diagnosis was changed to Asperger's Syndrome. J.M. has or is perceived to have by NYCDOE a disability.
150. When J.M. was in middle school at I.S. 206 in the Bronx, an IEP was developed for him. The IEP included a crisis management paraprofessional, testing accommodations, group counseling, and a Behavior Intervention Plan. The BIP included a provision permitting J.M. to call his mother during the day if he was feeling anxious as a last resort.
151. In June 2012, Ms. J. met with Mr. Pagan, a guidance counselor, at Lehman to select classes and to fill out paperwork regarding J.M.'s high school

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 14 of 19
admission. Mr. Pagan asked Ms. J. if J.M. had an IEP, and Ms. J. responded that he did. Ms. J. asked Mr. Pagan if he was going to note this and he said he would, but he did not do so in Ms. J. 's presence.
152. In July 2012 at freshman orientation, before J.M. began attending Lehman, Ms. J. met Thomasina Brown, who she later found out was J.M. 's guidance counselor, and Mr. Carucci, the assistant principal for the Anne Hutchinson Academy at Lehman. Ms. J. had concerns about Lehman, so she took this opportunity to ask questions of both of them. Mr. Carucci explained the different academies at Lehman. Ms. Brown answered questions about the school's orientation presentation. J.M. 's disability and the IEP were not discussed.
153. On J.M.'s first day at Lehman in September 2012, Ms. J. saw Ms. Brown again. She approached Ms. Brown and asked to meet with all of J.M.'s teachers regarding his IEP. During the rest of September, Ms. J. tried to reach Ms. Brown many times, but the phones at the school were not working properly so she was unable to reach her or leave a message.
154. On September 28, 2012, Ms. J. was at Lehman for a Parent Association Executive Board meeting in her capacity as Vice President of the Parent Association. While she was at the school, she went to say hello to Ms. Brown and on the way, she ran into Ms. Brown and Mr. Tirado, one of the deans for the Ann Hutchinson Academy. They told her that they were glad that she "caught them in the hallway" and asked her if anyone had called her about J.M. They told her that J.M. had used inappropriate language with a girl in the lunchroom. As a result, they pulled her into a conference room to an unplanned meeting with Ms. J. and Ms. Brown; Mr. Tirado; Mr. Carruci; Ms.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 15 of 19
Cabrejos, the Director of Student Services; and Ms. Cember, the Director of the committee on Special Education.
155. At the meeting it became clear to Ms. J. that despite its being three weeks into the school year and even though she had already spoken to Ms. Brown twice about J.M., no one at the meeting was familiar with J.M.'s IEP. Each administrator seemed to be looking at the IEP for the first time. Ms. Brown admitted that she had not previously read the IEP.
156. As they began to flip through the IEP, Ms. Brown said that the school had never provided group counseling, which is one of the support services provided in J.M.'s IEP. Ms. Cember suggested that the testing accommodation in J.M.'s IEP be removed
and his disability classification be changed. Ms. Cember asked for Ms. ! .'s permission to
change J.M.'s IEP, but Ms. J. told them she was not interested in changes to the IEP before it had even been followed by school staff. Rather, she expected them to first comply with the IEP.
157. On November 9, 2012, Ms. J. found out from J.M. that he had attended his first group counseling session of the school year. Ms. J. never received any notice from the school that the group counseling sessions had finally begun.
158. On November 13, 2012, J.M. took a geometry test without the testing accommodations required by his IEP. He felt he might have done poorly. Out of frustration, he ran a pen down his forearm. He did not cut or scratch himself, but after this incident Ms. J. received a call from Principal Rose Lobianco, who told her that she had the opportunity to pick J.M. up from school as a "courtesy" and if she did not the school would call EMS to have him taken to a hospital. Ms. J. left to pick up J.M.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 16 of 19
immediately. She received a total of five phone calls from Ms. Brown and Principal Lobianco as she was on her way to the school. They told her that J.M. hurt his arm. Ms. J. thought he needed to go to the doctor and called J.M.'s pediatrician to make an appointment while she was in the cab; she cancelled it later when she was told by the principal that the school nurse said J.M. 's arm was fine. She repeatedly asked to talk to J.M. and she was eventually permitted to speak to J.M., who was in the guidance counselor's office, where the nurse had checked his arm. When Ms. J. got to the school, he was still in the guidance counselor's office and Ms. J. took him home. Ms. Cabrejo wanted to speak with Ms. J. and Ms. J. declined to speak to her. Ms. J. took J.M. home and he stayed home from school the next day so he could go to the psychiatrist. J.M. explained to the psychiatrist that the reason for the incident was that he was frustrated and thought he did not do well on his test.
159. After J.M. returned to school on November 15, Ms. Cabrejo and Dean Tirado repeatedly asked Ms. J. to provide a doctor's note saying that it was okay for J.M. to return to school. Ms. J. declined to provide such a letter because she understood that the school had no right to require her to do so.
160. After she declined to provide a letter to the school, the staff at Lehman retaliated by reporting to the City Administration for Children's Services ("ACS") that she was being neglectful of J.M. The ACS investigator, Mr. Massaquoi, initially told her that staff at Lehman had accused her of neglecting J.M. because of scratches on his arm. Later, Mr. Massaquoi told her the school was also accusing her of neglect because she was unwilling to reopen his IEP. ACS's investigation found the report of neglect to be unfounded and the case was closed.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 17 of 19
161. Throughout the month of December, Ms. J. was repeatedly contacted by Ms. Cember, who continually asked Ms. J. to re-open J.M.'s IEP. Ms. J. continued to refuse, stating that she expected the school to comply with the IEP before any consideration was given to modifying it.
162. Because Ms. J. and J.M. were unhappy with Lehman, in December Ms. J. began the process of seeking a medical transfer to another school for J.M.'s sophomore year.
163. On January 9, 2013, Ms. J. was at the school regarding paperwork for the transfer. She had a disagreement Ms. Cabrejos, who was insisting on copies of all ofthe paperwork Ms. J. had to submit to the DOE's Office of Student Enrollment before she would sign off on the transfer application. Before Ms. J. left the school, she told J.M. that school was giving her a hard time about the transfer.
164. J.M. was upset about the difficulty his mother was having regarding the transfer application and, at around approximately 12:00 p.m., his English teacher noticed he was agitated in class. He asked to call his mother, but his teacher refused. Instead, she asked him to write down why he was feeling anxious. He wrote down his feelings and as he was putting them away in his binder, his teacher demanded that he give her what he had written.
165. J.M. had written, "Honestly I feel like something is bothering me and I don't know what, and it's making me get hype in a crazy way, and it's in a bad way. I get something bothering me and it just gets me to the point I feel like I want to scream. Unable to work because of what's happening."
166. After English class, J.M. was able to call his mother from the main office

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 18 of 19
before going to lunch and he then felt better. J.M. continued throughout the rest of his school day without incident, but at the end of gym class, the last class of the day, Mr. Carruci and Ms. Brown came and escorted him to the principal's office.
167. At 3:30, Ms. J. got a phone call from the principal, who told that the school had called EMS and that J.M. was going to be taken to the emergency room. She received no "courtesy call" this time. She asked why J.M. was being taken to the hospital and the principal told her she would find out when she got to the school. While on the way to the school, Ms. J. called back to see if the ambulance left yet, and she asked to speak to an EMS worker. She spoke to the EMT and he said that the ambulance had not left the school yet. She asked them to take J.M. to Montefiore because Montefiore accepts her insurance and the EMS worker agreed. He said he would explain what happened when she got there. Ms. J. was not permitted to talk to J.M.
168. Ms. J. arrived at the school around 3:50. She asked if she could bring J.M. to the psychiatrist and she was told she could not. In response to her question about why EMS had been called, the EMS worker showed her a written statement from J.M.' s English teacher in which she reported his agitation in her class and in which she claimed that, "Tawards the end of the period, a girl started screaming in the hallway. [J.M.] turned abruptly to face the door, pointed his fingers toward the door as if his hand was [sic] a gun and then shouted the sounds of a shooting gun." J.M. completely denies this. He has no recollection of anything even similar to this teacher's account. After his English class, J.M. was permitted to continue with the rest of his school day without any intervention from the school's administrators or teachers. They did not take him to the office or call EMS until two periods after English, until it was almost time for dismissal.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-1 Filed 12/11/13 Page 19 of 19
169. EMS transported J.M. to Montefiore Hospital accompanied by Ms. J. According to an EMS worker, J.M.'s "chief complaint" was "I am fine. " The EMS worker noted that through the transport to the hospital, JM was observed to be "in position of comfort w/o change in status or further incident[]." The "presumptive diagnosis" noted by the EMS worker was "behavioral eval for threatening remarks."
170. In the emergency room J.M. was evaluated by a nurse, a medical doctor and a psychiatrist. Each evaluation notes that J.M. was alert, cooperative and calm. JM was discharged eight minutes after meeting with the emergency room psychiatrist. The psychiatrist noted that J.M. had no current suicidal or homicidal ideation, plan or intent, that he was soft spoken, and that he was not dangerous. The psychiatrist detailed that during the interview the "patient was calm and cooperative and responsive [illegible]."
171. J.M. received no treatment from the hospital. J.M. was released without medication prescription and was simply advised to follow up with his own psychiatrist and was permitted to return to school the following day.
172. Ms. J. has not received a bill from the emergency room, but her insurance was billed.
173. In a mediation on March 21, 2013 about J.M's IEP, it was agreed that J.M. would transfer out of Lehman. On April 4, Ms. J. went to the Student Enrollment Office and found out he was transferring to Astor Collegiate Academy. He began attending Astor on April 8, 2013.
174. As part of the mediation, it was agreed that the school would develop a new IEP for J.M. for the 2013-2014 school year.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 1 of 18
N.R.
175. N.R. is a six-year-old student who attends P.S. 19 in Queens. He previously attended P.S. 165, which is also in Queens. He resides with his mother, Y.P., in Queens. N.R. has or is perceived to have by NYCDOE a disability.
176. N.R. first enrolled at P.S 165 as a pre-kindergarten student during the 2011-2012 school year. In September 2012, N.R. entered kindergarten at the school.
177. At the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, Y.P asked P.S 165 to evaluate N.R. for possible special education supports and services. She had made similar requests the year before, including a request for counseling in or about March of2012 when N.R. attended pre-kindergarten at the school.
178. On October 4, 2012, Y.P. received a telephone call from the school informing her that N .R. was misbehaving by climbing under the table, jumping and throwing things and walking away. The school told her that the police had been called and threatened to have N.R. taken to the hospital. Y.P. asked school officials not to have N .R. taken to the hospital and to wait for her to get to the school from work, but they refused. Y.P. managed to contact her mother and asked her to go to the school to pick up N.R.
179. When Y.P's mother arrived at the school, N.R. was surrounded by police officers and school personnel and was sitting calmly. Nonetheless, the principal would not allow N.R. ' s grandmother to take him home. Y.P. got on the phone with the school and demanded that N.R. be turned over to her mother. The school refused and handed the telephone over to the police. Only after Y.P. got on the phone with the police and

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 2 of 18
complained strenuously, did they release N.R. to his grandmother. However, they threatened to arrest N .R. if he misbehaved in the future.
180. Following this incident with the school, N.R. became fearful when he saw police, heard sirens, or saw police cars or ambulances. He told his mother that he did not want to go to school because people at his school told him that they were going to call the police and the ambulance workers to come to get him.
181. On or about October 10, the school contacted Y.P. and told her that her son was again misbehaving by running and jumping around, going under the table, and hitting others. She was told to pick up N.R., so she left work to go to the school. When Y.P got there, she was told by school staff, Ms. Bonagura and Ms. Legions that N.R. could not return to school until he was psychiatrically evaluated and cleared by a doctor. They suggested that Y.P. take N.R. to Long Island Jewish Hospital (LIJH) for evaluation and told her that there must be something psychiatrically or neurologically wrong with N.R.
182. Because Y.P. could not bring her son for an evaluation until October, 12, 20 12, and because the school would not permit him to return without medical clearance, he could not attend school for two days, October 11 and 12.
183. On October 12, Y.P. took N.R. to Long Island Jewish Hospital ("LIJH") in order to comply with the school's directive that he be evaluated and receive clearance before returning to school after the purported incident on October 10. Doctors and other hospital staff met with N .R., spoke to his mother and contacted the school. Y.P. explained that the behavior reported by the school was not consistent with his behavior at home. Hospital staff noted that NR was "cheerful, cooperative though restless during

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 3 of 18
interview" and found that NR "does not present as an imminent risk of hurting self or others." LIJH released N.R. and sent him home with his mother. They provided Y.P. with a referral for outpatient counseling for N.R. which she followed up on.
184. On October 22, the school again called Y.P. at work and told her that EMS was at the school to take N.R. to the hospital.
185. Y.P. begged the school not to send her son to the hospital via EMS and asked school staff to wait for her to come and pick up her son. She was told by the principal and other members of staff that the school was in the business of teaching, not taking care ofchildren and that they would not wait.
186. Y.P. contacted her mother and asked her to go to the school to be with N.R. N.R.'s grandmother met him at the school and accompanied him to the hospital with EMS. Although N.R. was calm when his grandmother arrived, the principal and assistant principal would not let her take N.R. home and insisted that EMS take him to the hospital. EMS workers removed N.R. against the wishes of his mother and grandmother.
187. Y.P.left work and went to LIJH to meet her mother and N.R. at the hospital as soon as she could.
188. At the hospital, N .R. was seen by numerous hospital personnel, including doctors and social workers. Hospital staff spoke to N.R., who was "calm and cooperative," and called the school to find out why he had been sent by them. They evaluated his condition and cleared him for release to his mother.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 4 of 18
189. At no time prior to the events of October 2012 did the NYCDOE convene an IEP meeting or develop a Behavior Intervention Plan for N.R. nor, upon information and belief, did NYCDOE even complete a written evaluation ofN.R.
190. In February 2013, an IEP review meeting took place at Y.P's request and a recommendation was made for a 12:1:1 program in a community school for N.R. The IEP also mandated a one-to-one paraprofessional, counseling, speech and occupational therapy services. Thereafter, Y. P. enrolled N.R. at P.S 19 and he began attending a 12:1:1 program at the school.
191. P.S. 19 failed to provide N.R. with a one-on-one paraprofessional and all ofhis mandated supports and services, despite Y.P's requests that the school do so. Staff at the school stated that they lacked resources and indicated that they would send her son to the ER if he misbehaved. In addition, shortly after N.R. arrived at P.S. 19, school officials informed Y.P. that she would have to pick her son up from school each day at 11:00 a.m. Fearing that the school would resort to inappropriate EMS intervention which would further traumatize her son, Y.P complied with this demand and collected her son early each day.
192. The shortened school day caused Y.P. great hardship, forcing her to adjust her schedule at work and to work later hours in order to keep her job.
193. Toward the end ofthe school year, Y.P met with school officials and again asked that NR receive all of his mandated IEP supports and services and that the school allow him to attend full-time as do all of the other children at the school.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 5 of 18
194. N.R. continues to be enrolled at P.S. 19. N.R. and Y.P fear that at any moment the defendants may resort to inappropriate use of EMS to address N.R. 's special needs and cause N .R to again be unnecessarily and unlawfully removed to the hospital.
D.E. 195. D.E. is a seven-year-old boy who was enrolled as a kindergarten student
at P.S. K255 in Brooklyn for the 2011-2012 school year. He had just turned five on September 6, 2011. It was his first year at P.S. K255.
196. D.E. is a special education student with an IEP. D.E. has been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder ("ASD"). A Behavior Intervention Plan ("BIP") had been developed and established for DE in conjunction with his IEP. For the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years, DE attended a special education pre-school at P.S. M226. D.E. has or is perceived to have by NYCDOE a disability.
197. Though D.E. progressed remarkably well in terms of academic achievement and functional performance at P.S. M226, he exhibited social and behavioral deficits commonly associated with ASD. D.E. has significant difficulty with transitions, and becomes frustrated easily. D.E. 's frustration often manifests in the form of tantrums, which are common among children with ASD. This information was well known to NYCDOE, and was clearly discussed in his IEP. At P.S. M226, whenever D.E. had a tantrum, school personnel responded appropriately and helped him to calm down, such that he would remain in school with his classmates.
198. On June 7, 2011, following an IEP meeting, DOE offered D.E. a placement in a 12:1:1 kindergarten classroom at P.S. K255. D.E.'s mother, M.E., complied with this recommendation.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 6 of 18
199. On September 22, 2011, after D.E. had been in kindergarten for about two weeks, he had tantrum at school. P.S. K255 personnel notified Ms. E., and asked her to come to the school. When Ms. E. arrived, she spoke with school personnel, sat in class with D.E., and then took him home.
200. On September 27, 2011, D.E. had another tantrum at school. D.E. showed no signs of injury. Nevertheless, P.S. K255 personnel summoned EMS and police, and then notified Ms. E. When Ms. E arrived, she found D.E., school personnel, EMS, and police in the school vestibule. D.E. was no longer having a tantrum, but a security guard was pinning him to the ground.
201. Ms. E rushed to comfort her terrified son, and asked if she could take D.E. home, but EMS told Ms. E that D.E. had to be taken by ambulance to the Coney Island Hospital psychiatric ward. EMS put D.E. in an ambulance, and Ms. Erode in the ambulance with D.E. and EMS to Coney Island Hospital.
202. Upon arriving at Coney Island Hospital, D.E. and Ms. E. were sent through the aduit emergency room to triage. Afterward, they were told to wait for a pediatrician for a physical examination. The pediatrician only assessed D.E. and did not treat him or prescribe medication.
203. D.E. and Ms. E. were then told to wait for a psychiatrist for a psychiatric consultation. The psychiatrist only assessed D.E. and did not treat him or prescribe medication.
204. D.E. was then allowed to proceed to discharge on the basis that he did not
require emergency services. The ordeal lasted approximately six hours, in which D.E.
and Ms. E. were not allowed to leave and were neither provided food nor any

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 7 of 18
opportunity to get food. During that time, D.E. was hungry, tired, anxious, confused, and desperate to leave the hospital.
205. On October 6, 2011 , D.E. had a tantrum at school. D.E. showed no signs of injury, but P.S. K255 personnel again summoned EMS and the police, and then notified Ms. E. Ms. E called her sister, Natasha Grall, and Ms. E and Ms. Grall each hurried to the school. Ms. Grall arrived in fifteen minutes. When she arrived, she found D.E., school personnel, EMS, and police in the principal's office. D.E. was no longer having a tantrum.
206. Ms. Grall wanted to take D.E. home, but EMS stopped Ms. Grall and told her that D.E. had to be taken by ambulance to the Coney Island Hospital psychiatric ward. Within ten minutes of Ms. Grall's arrival, Ms. E. arrived at the school by taxi. EMS put D.E. in an ambulance, and Ms. E. rode in the ambulance with D.E., Ms. Grall, and EMS to Coney Island Hospital.
207. Upon arriving at Coney Island Hospital, D.E. and Ms. E. found themselves in the same situation they had endured on September 27. First, they were sent through the adult emergency room to triage. Afterward, they were told to wait for a pediatrician for a physical examination. The pediatrician only assessed D .E. and did not treat him or prescribe medication. D.E. and Ms. E. were then told to wait for a psychiatrist for a psychiatric consultation. The psychiatrist only assessed D.E. and did not treat him or prescribe medication. D.E. was then allowed to proceed to discharge on the basis that he did not require emergency services. The ordeal lasted between four and six hours, in which D.E. and Ms. E. were not allowed to leave and were neither provided

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 8 of 18
food nor any opportunity to get food. During that time, D.E. was just as hungry, tired, anxious, confused, and desperate to leave the hospital as he had been on September 27.
208. On October 12, 2011, D.E. had a tantrum at school. D.E. showed no signs of injury. P.S. K255 personnel again summoned EMS and police, and then notified Ms. E. When Ms. E arrived, she found D.E., school personnel, EMS, and police in a classroom. DE was sitting under a table and was no longer having a tantrum, but he was crying and saying that he was scared of going to jail. Ms. E. asked if she could take D.E. home, but EMS told Ms. E that D.E. had to be taken by ambulance to the Coney Island Hospital psychiatric ward. EMS put D.E. in an ambulance, and Ms. E. rode in the ambulance with D.E. and EMS to Coney Island Hospital.
209. Upon arriving at Coney Island Hospital, D.E. and Ms. E found themselves in the same situation they had endured twice before. After triage, a physical examination by a pediatrician, and a psychiatric consultation by a psychiatrist, D.E. was allowed to proceed to discharge on the basis that he did not require emergency services. The ordeal again lasted between four and six hours without breaks or food. During that time, D.E. was just as hungry, tired, anxious, confused, and desperate to leave the hospital as he had been on prior occasions.
210. While at Coney Island Hospital on October 12, a nurse referred Ms. E. to a pediatric psychology walk-in clinic at Kings County Hospital Center. Ms. E. visited the walk-in clinic the next day, October 13, but clinic staff told her to return the following day, October 14. Ms. E. did so, and the walk-in clinic referred her to the Developmental Evaluation Clinic ("DEC").

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 9 of 18
·211. On October 14, 2011, Ms. E. met with a social worker at DEC for intake and to set up appointments for D.E. to be evaluated. The evaluations, including psychological and neurological evaluations, were scheduled to take place in late October and early November. Soon thereafter, Ms. E. notified P.S. K.255 that D.E. was being independently evaluated. Ms. E had made attempts to have D.E. independently evaluated since September 28, the day after the first EMS incident, but had been denied services because ofproblems with her insurance.
212. On October 26,2011, while the DEC's independent evaluation ofD.E. was ongoing, D.E. had a tantrum at school. D.E. showed no signs of injury. P.S. K255 personnel again summoned EMS and police, and then notified Ms. E. When Ms. E. arrived, she found D.E., school personnel, EMS, and police in the school library. Ms. Grall arrived separately at approximately the same time. D.E. was no longer having a tantrum. On this occasion, EMS told Ms. E. that she could take D.E. home. Ms. E. took D.E. home as permitted by EMS.
213. That evening, the Administration for Children's Services contacted Ms. E. and told her that P.S. K.255 personnel had filed an abuse and neglect report against her, alleging that Ms. E. had refused medical care for her son by refusing to allow EMS to take D.E. to Coney Island Hospital. ACS investigated the report but found it to be baseless, amended the report to show it was unfounded, and legally sealed the report.
214. On November 9, 2011, D.E. had a tantrum at school. D.E. showed no signs of injury. P.S. K255 personnel again summoned EMS and police, then notified Ms. E. When Ms. E arrived, she found D.E., school personnel, EMS, and police on the third floor of the school. DE was no longer having a tantrum, but he was crying and saying

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 10 of 18
that he was scared of being in trouble. Ms. E. asked if she could take D.E. home, but EMS told Ms. E. that D.E. had to be taken by ambulance to the Coney Island Hospital psychiatric ward. EMS put D.E. in an ambulance, and Ms. E. rode in the ambulance with D.E. and EMS to Coney Island Hospital.
215. Upon arriving at Coney Island Hospital, D.E. and Ms. E. found themselves in the same situation they had endured three times before. After triage, a physical examination by a pediatrician, and a psychiatric consultation by a psychiatrist, D.E. was allowed to proceed to discharge on the basis that he did not require emergency services. The ordeal again lasted between four and six hours without breaks or food. During that time, D.E. was just as hungry, tired, anxious, confused, and desperate to leave the hospital as he had been on prior occasions.
216. In response to these incidents, D.E. became more and more resistant to going to school. Ms. E was afraid that the pattern would never stop, and that whenever D.E. had a tantrum, P.S. K255 might contact EMS and police and further traumatize him. Ms. E. was also afraid that P.S. K255 personnel would continue filing baseless reports with ACS. As a result, Ms. E. began keeping D.E. home from school more often. IfD.E. was acting up or having a bad day, Ms. E. decided that it was not worth the risk that he might tantrum, and be subjected to another EMS ordeal. Ms. E. also kept D.E. home unless she could accompany him to school, or was absolutely sure that, for the duration of the school day, either she or her sister would be close enough to the school to respond in the event that they were notified of a tantrum.

.. Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 11 of 18
2 17. On December 21, 2011, DEC professionals responsible for D.E.'s independent evaluation met to discuss their findings. On January 11, 2012, DEC released D .E. 's psychological evaluation report to P.S. K255 with Ms. E.'s permission.
2 18. On February 15, 2012, an IEP meeting was held at which the schoolbased Committee on Special Education ("CSE") proposed that D.E. attend a 6: 1:1 class at a District 75 school with speech language therapy, occupational therapy, and a 1:1 crisis paraprofessional. The program proposed by CSE would not be implemented until April13, 2012, until which time D.E. would remain in his current, inappropriate program. Ms. E was worried that if kept in that inappropriate program, D.E. would continue to have tantrums and P.S. K225 personnel would continue to summon EMS and police in response.
219. On February 17, 2012, in order to protect D.E. from further needless trauma, Ms. E withdrew her son from P.S. K255 and the public school system. Ms. E moved and re-enrolled D.E. in the public school system in Manhattan in April2012. She was offered a placement at P226@875 in a 6:1:1 class. Ms. E. viewed the program and found it inappropriate for her son.
220. On or about May 4, 2012 Ms. E. filed an administrative Impartial Hearing request under the IDEA, alleging the DOE denied D.E. his right to a free and appropriate education for the 2011-2012 school year for the inappropriate actions ofP.S. 255 and for the failure of the DOE to recommend an appropriate program. Ms. E. sought prospective funding for a private school for children with autism at the DOE's expense for the remainder ofthe 2011-2012 school year and the 2012-2013 school year.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 12 of 18
221. On October 16, 2012, the Impartial Hearing Officer ("IHO") issued a decision granting the request that DOE be required to pay for a private school placement for D.E. for the 2012-2013 school year.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: UNREASONABLE SEIZURE (Oh behalf of Plaintiffs J.H., J.R., N.R. and D.E. against all defendants) 222. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 223. By physically removing plaintiff from their schools to hospital emergency rooms when there was no medical necessity to take such actions, defendants violated plaintiffs' rights against unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12 ofthe New York State Constitution. 224. A claim for violation of plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution is made actionable by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (On behalf of Plaintiffs T.H., J.H. , K.J., J.R., C.J., J.M., Y.P, N.R., M.E. and
D.E. against all defendants) 225. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 226. By removing plaintiff children from school to emergency rooms against or without their parents' consent where there was no urgent medical necessity, defendants violated plaintiff parents right to authorize and direct the medical care given to their children. By forcibly removing plaintiff children from the school to emergency rooms against or without their parents' consent where there was no urgent medical necessity, defendants violated the liberty interest ofplaintiffparents and children to association and family integrity.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 13 of 18
227. By preventing plaintiff parents and children from communicating prior to the removal of plaintiff children from the school where the plaintiff parents request the opportunity to speak with their plaintiff children, defendants violated the liberty interest of plaintiff parents to associate and maintain family integrity.
228. A claim for violation of plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution is made actionable by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: IDEA (On behalf of all of the plaintiffchildren against Defendants Walcott, New York
City Department of Education, and the City ofNew York) 229. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 230. By failing to evaluate the psychological, behavioral, and educational needs of the plaintiffs and opting instead to transport them or threaten to transport them by EMS away from their schools, defendants have violated plaintiffs' rights under the IDEA. 231. By removing or threatening to remove plaintiffs from the regular educational environment using EMS to address behavior concerns rather than using supplementary aids and services, defendants have violated plaintiffs' rights under the IDEA to be educated in the least restrictive environment. 232. By failing to address plaintiffs' behavioral issues with a behavioral intervention plan, defendants have violated plaintiffs' rights under the IDEA. 233. By requiring a clearance letter before allowing these plaintiffs to return to the regular classroom setting, defendants have deprived plaintiffs of their rights under

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 14 of 18
the IDEA to a free and appropriate public education by establishing an illegal precondition to the receipt of their educational services.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: IDEA (On behalf of all of the plaintiff parents against Defendants Walcott, New York
City Department of Education, and the City ofNew York) 234. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 235. By transporting students to emergency rooms by EMS for evaluations or threatening to do so instead of following the IDEA evaluation process, defendants have deprived the parent plaintiffs of their rights under IDEA to consent or withhold consent to evaluations of their children.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: REHABILITATION ACT (On behalf of all plaintiff children against all defendants)
236. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 237. By removing plaintiffs from their schools by EMS or threatening to do so when defendants had no reasonable basis for believing that plaintiffs were in need of emergency medical care, defendants have excluded plaintiffs from participation in a federally funded program by reason of their disabilities or perceived disabilities in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. 238. By removing plaintiffs from their regular school setting and placing them with EMS and in hospitals rather than providing appropriate support and services in the school, defendants violated plaintiffs' right to a public education in the least restrictive setting under the Rehabilitation Act.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 15 of 18 ' '
239. By requiring a clearance letter before allowing these plaintiffs to return to the regular classroom setting, defendants created an additional barrier for these plaintiffs based solely on disability or perceived disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: ADA (On behalf of all plaintiff children against all defendants) 240. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 241. By removing plaintiffs from their schools by EMS or threatening to do so when Defendants had no reasonable basis for believing that plaintiffs were in need of emergency medical care, defendants have discriminated against plaintiffs by reason of their disabilities or perceived disabilities. 242. By removing plaintiffs from the educational setting using EMS or threatening to do so, rather than providing appropriate support and services in the school, defendants failed to administer educational services in the least restrictive setting appropriate to plaintiffs' needs in violation of the ADA. 243. By requiring plaintiffs to secure a clearance letter prior to allowing a return to the classroom, defendants impose a safety requirement based on mere speculation, stereotype and generalizations about individuals with disabilities or perceived disabilities, in violation of the ADA. SEVENTH CLAIM"FOR RELIEF: NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (On behalf of all plaintiff children against all defendants) 244. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as iffully set forth herein. 245. By removing plaintiffs from their schools by EMS or threatening to do so when there was no reasonable basis for believing that plaintiffs were in need of emergency medical care, defendants deprived plaintiffs of access to and the advantages

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 16 of 18
of a public accommodation due to their disabilities or perceived disabilities in violation of Administrative Code of the City ofNew York §8-107(4)(a).
246. By requiring a clearance letter prior to allowing plaintiffs to return to the classroom, defendants deprived plaintiffs of their right to an education due to their disabilities or perceived disabilities in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-107(4)(a).
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter a final judgment:
1. Declaring that defendants' practice of removing students from their schools by EMS when there is no reasonable basis for believing that they are need of emergency medical services violates the United States Constitution, the IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, the New York City Human Rights Law, the Chancellor's Regulations, and FDNY Regulations;
2. Declaring that defendants' practice of prohibiting students from returning to school without a clearance letter from a doctor violates the IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and the New York City Human Rights Law;
3. Permanently enjoining Defendants City ofNew York, NYCDOE, and Walcott to provide school personnel with the training and resources they need to address disruptive student behavior without removing students from school by EMS when there is no reasonable basis for believing that they are in need of emergency medical services;

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 17 of 18
4. Permanently enjoining Defendants City of New York, NYCDOE, and Walcott from removing students from their schools by EMS when there is no reasonable basis for believing that they are need of emergency medical services;
5. Permanently enjoining Defendants City ofNew York, NYCDOE, and Walcott to comply with the evaluation requirements of IDEA, including the Child Find requirement, for all students who display behavioral difficulties that interfere with their educations;
6. Permanently enjoining Defendants City ofNew York, NYCDOE, and Walcott from requiring families to provide letters from medical providers prior to permitting students who have or are perceived to have a mental illness or a behavioral disability to return to school without due process of law;
7. Permanently enjoining Defendants City ofNew York and Cassano from using or permitting EMS to remove children from New York City public schools over the objection of their parents or other guardians except when a child has a lifethreatening condition or injury and it is apparent that even a minor delay will jeopardize the life or health of the minor;
8. Awarding the plaintiffs damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 9. Awarding the plaintiffs interest, costs and attorney's fees incurred in the pursuit of this action; and

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 1-2 Filed 12/11/13 Page 18 of 18

10.

Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and

proper.

Dated: Bronx, New York December 10, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

Nelson Mar
Tara Foster Nancy Bedard Maura McHugh Mills Christopher D. Lamb Ann P. Biddle Nanette Schorr Tanya Douglas

Legal Services NYC 349 E.149th Street Bronx, New York 10451 (718) 928-3756

Attorneys K.J., J.R. ,

for Plaintiffs T.H., J.H., C.J., J.M., Y.P. , N.R.,

M.E., and D.E.

Mariann Wang Cuti Hecker Wang LLP 305 Broadway, Suite 607 New York, New York 10007 (212) 620-2063
Attorneys for PlaintiffW.P.

 
 Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 75

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------X

T.H., individually and as next friend to minor child J.H.,

K.P., as next friend to minor child W.P.,

2013 Civ. 8777

K.J., individually and as next friend to minor child J.R.,

C.J., individually and as next friend to minor child J.M.,

Y.P., individually and as next friend to minor child N.R.,

AMENDED

M.E., individually and as next friend to minor child D.E.,

COMPLAINT

T.W., individually and as next friend to minor child A.A.,

A.D., individually and as next friend to the minor child S.D.,

N.C.R., individually and as next friend to the minor child C.R.,

I.S., individually and as next friend to the minor child Q.A., and

R.M.T., individually and as next friend to the minor child R.T.,

-against-

Plaintiffs,

CARMEN FARIÑA, as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, the CITY OF NEW YORK, SALVATORE J. CASSANO, as Commissioner of the Fire Department of New York, and JOHN/ JANE DOE #’s 1-24 in their individual capacities,

Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------X

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs are children in New York City public schools whose educations

have been forcefully interrupted because their schools have summoned Emergency

Medical Services (“EMS”) to have them removed by ambulances even though they were

not in need of emergency medical care. In some instances, EMS personnel insisted on

transporting them to hospitals against the express wishes of their families. As a result,

plaintiff students have not only been detained by school and EMS personnel against

their wills, they have also been traumatized by unnecessary trips to emergency rooms

and deprived of valuable instructional time.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 75
2. Plaintiffs are also the parents of these students. School and EMS procedures fail to allow parent plaintiffs to determine the nonemergency medical care for their children. In addition, school and EMS policies and practices cause these children to be detained and then removed against the wishes of parents and guardians. Finally, school and EMS practices cause plaintiff parents to incur fees for ambulance and emergency room services that the plaintiff children did not need and that the families cannot afford.
3. The plaintiffs’ ordeals have been caused by the schools’ failure to utilize the systems already set up—as required by law--for evaluating children with perceived disabilities, including behavioral issues, in addition to the schools’ pattern and practice of instead using EMS to remove students from their schools and forcing them to undergo emergency medical evaluations in nonemergency situations. Plaintiff students, and their families, remain at risk so long as these patterns and practices persist. At the same time, the emergency resources of New York City are misdirected at children who are not facing any emergency.
4. Plaintiffs ask this Court to find that defendants’ conduct has violated their rights under federal statutory and Constitutional law, the New York State Constitution, and the New York City Human Rights Law; to enjoin defendants from continuing to violate plaintiffs’ rights; and to award plaintiffs’ damages for the violation of their rights.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (a)(4), and 1337. A cause of action for the federal constitutional claims is created by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Federal claims raised here include

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 3 of 75
claims arising from the U.S. Constitution, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
6. This court has supplemental jurisdiction over state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
7. Declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) and Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8. Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
PARTIES Plaintiffs
9. Although known to defendants, plaintiffs are named in this complaint using only their initials in order to preserve the privacy guaranteed the plaintiff children by the IDEA, as well as by Family Educational Rights Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232(g) and 34 C.F.R. § 99.
10. Plaintiff T.H. is the parent of minor child J.H. and resides in the Bronx, New York
11. Plaintiff J.H. is six years old and resides in the Bronx, New York. 12. Plaintiff W.P. is five years old and resides in New York, New York. 13. Plaintiff K.J. is the parent of minor child J.R. and resides in the New York, New York. 14. Plaintiff J.R. is five years old and resides in the New York, New York. 15. Plaintiff C.J. is the parent of minor child J.M. and resides in the New York, New York.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 4 of 75
16. Plaintiff J.M is fifteen years old and resides in the Bronx, New York. 17. Plaintiff Y.P. is the parent of minor child N.R. and resides in Queens, New York. 18. Plaintiff N.R. is six years old and resides in Queens, New York. 19. Plaintiff M.E is the parent of minor child D.E. and resides in New York City, New York. 20. Plaintiff D.E. is seven years old and resides in New York City, New York. 21. Plaintiff T.W. is the parent of minor child A.A. and resides in Brooklyn, New York. 22. Plaintiff A.A. is eleven years old and resides in Brooklyn, New York. 23. Plaintiff A.D. is the parent of minor child S.D. and resides in Queens, New York. 24. Plaintiff S.D. is eight years old and resides in Queens, New York. 25. Plaintiff N.C.R. is the parent of minor child C.R. and resides in the Bronx, New York. 26. Plaintiff C.R. is six years old and resides in the Bronx, New York. 27. Plaintiff I.S. is the parent of minor child Q.A. and resides in the Bronx, New York. 28. Plaintiff Q.A. is twelve years old and resides in the Bronx, New York. 29. Plaintiff R.M.T. is the parent of minor child R.T. and resides in New York City, New York. 30. Plaintiff R.T. is five years old and resides in New York City, New York.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 5 of 75
Defendants 31. Defendant Carmen Fariña is the chancellor of the New York City
Department of Education (“NYCDOE”) and is responsible for its operation. Defendant Fariña has the power and duty to perform any duty imposed upon the NYCDOE, including the operation of all general education and special education programs and services. She is sued in her official capacity. At all times relevant to the events described herein, Defendant Fariña and her predecessor, Dennis Walcott, acted under color of law of the State of New York and in their capacity as agents, servants, and employees of defendant New York City and/or NYCDOE, and within the scope of their employment as such.
32. Defendant New York City Department of Education is responsible for operating New York City’s public schools, which are attended by approximately 1.1 million students. NYCDOE maintains its principal place of business at 52 Chambers Street in New York County. NYCDOE receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding each year, including approximately $600 million in funding under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Defendants Carmen Fariña and NYCDOE are collectively referred to as “NYCDOE” herein.
33. Defendant the City of New York is a municipal corporation duly incorporated and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York. It is authorized under the laws of the State of New York to maintain a fire department, the “FDNY”, which acts as its agent in the area of Emergency Medical Services and for which it is ultimately responsible, In 2013, the FDNY received over $90 million in federal funding.
34. Defendant Salvatore J. Cassano is the commissioner of the FDNY and is responsible for its operations, including its operation of EMS. As FDNY

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 6 of 75
Commissioner, Defendant Cassano has the power and duty to perform any duty imposed upon the FDNY, including the training of Emergency Medical Technicians (“EMT”) responding to calls, and the implementation of regulations and rules governing EMT’s and how they respond to calls, including calls to schools. He is sued in his official capacity. At all times relevant to the events described herein, Defendant Cassano acted under color of law of the State of New York and in his capacity as an agent, servant, and employee of defendant New York City and/or the FDNY, and within the scope of his employment as such.
35. Defendants John/Jane Doe #’s 1-24 are and/or were, at all times relevant herein Emergency Medical Technicians and employees and agents of the FDNY. At all times relevant to the events described herein, Defendants John/Jane Does #’s 1-24 acted under color of law of the State of New York and in their capacities as agents, servants, and employees of defendant New York City and/or FDNY, and within the scope of their employment as such. John/Jane Doe #’s 1 and 2 were responsible for removing Plaintiff J.H. from his school against his mother’s wishes on November 13, 2012. John/Jane Doe #’s 3 and 4 were responsible for removing Plaintiff J.H. from his school against his mother’s wishes on November 1, 2013. John/Jane Doe #’s 5 and 6 were responsible for removing Plaintiff J.R. from his school against his family’s wishes on April 29, 2013. John/Jane Doe #’s 7 and 8 were responsible for removing Plaintiff J.R. from his school against his mother’s wishes on May 15, 2013. John/Jane Doe #’s 9 and 10 were responsible for removing Plaintiff N.R. from his school against his family’s wishes on October 22, 2012. John/Jane Doe’s 11 and 12 were responsible from removing Plaintiff D.E. from his school against his mother’s wishes on September 27, 2011. John/Jane

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 7 of 75
Doe #’s 13 and 14 were responsible for removing Plaintiff D.E. from his school against his family’s wishes on October 6, 2011. John/Jane Doe #’s 15 and 16 were responsible for removing Plaintiff D.E. from his school against his mother’s wishes on October 12, 2011. John/Jane Doe #’s 17 and 18 were responsible for removing Plaintiff D.E. against his mother’s wishes on November 9, 2011. John/Jane Doe #’s 19 and 20 were responsible for removing Plaintiff A.A. against his mother’s wishes on November 6, 2012. John/Jane Doe #’s 21 and 22 were responsible for removing Plaintiff S.D. against his mother’s wishes on October 31, 2013. John/Jane Doe #’s 23 and 24 were responsible for removing Plaintiff R.T. against his mother’s wishes on November 15, 2013.
JURY DEMAND 36. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this action on each and every one of their claims.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK The United States Constitution
37. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment and provides that persons shall not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures.
38. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process.
39. One of the liberties protected by the due process clause is the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children, including the right to authorize and direct the medical care given to their children.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 8 of 75
40. The due process clause also protects the fundamental liberty interest of both parents and children not be forcibly separated from each other, even temporarily, without due process. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
41. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq., governs how states and localities provide early intervention, special education, and related services to children with disabilities.
42. IDEA defines a child with a disability as “a child (i) with intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this chapter as “emotional disturbance”), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and (ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.” 20 U.S.C. §1401(3)(A).
43. Under IDEA, states must make available “a free appropriate public education . . . to all children with disabilities residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive, including children with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from school.” 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(1)(A).
44. IDEA defines “free and appropriate education” as: “special education and related services that (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(d) of this title.” 20 U.S.C. §1401(9).

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 9 of 75
45. The IDEA also mandates that “removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occur[] only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” 20 U.S.C §1412(a) (5)(A).
46. Under the Child Find requirements of the IDEA, schools districts have an affirmative duty to locate, identify and evaluate students who may require special education programs or services. 20 U.S.C §1412(a)(3).
47. Either a parent or guardian or a school can make a referral to have a child evaluated for special education supports and services in New York State. 20 U.S.C. §1414 (a)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. §300.301(b); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.4(a). Schools must obtain a parent’s informed consent before performing an evaluation. 34 CFR § 300.300.
48. As part of an initial evaluation and subsequent reevaluations, each school district is required to use “a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child” that may assist the district in determining if the child is entitled to special education services and what those services should be. 20 U.S.C. §1414 (b)(2); 34 C.F.R. §300.304 (b).
49. The school district is also required to assess the child in “all areas related to the suspected disability,” including, if appropriate, the emotional status of a child and how behavioral factors impact the child. 20 U.S.C. §1414 (b)(3); 34 C.F.R. §300.304 (b)(4).
50. Following an evaluation in all areas of suspected disability, a meeting must be scheduled on written notice to the parent with a multidisciplinary team to

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 10 of 75
determine if the student meets a classification under the IDEA and to develop an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the child. 20 U.S.C. §1414 (b)(4) and (5); 34 C.F.R. §300.306.
51. Parents are entitled to participate in an annual review of the IEP, to discuss and update the IEP and if appropriate to revise the programs, services and supports. 20 U.S.C. §1414 (d)(4); 34 C.F.R. §300.324(b).
52. Students have the right to be educated in the least restrictive environment with appropriate supports and services. 20 U.S.C. §1412 (a)(5) and (5); 34 C.F.R. §300.114.
53. For a child exhibiting behavioral issues that impact the student’s educational process, the school district must conduct appropriate assessments such as a functional behavior assessment (FBA) to determine the appropriate services to address those behaviors. In addition, the school district should develop a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) on notice to and with the participation of the parent, to address the behavioral issues. 20 U.S.C. 1415 (k); 34 C.F.R. §300.530(f). The Rehabilitation Act
54. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs receiving federal financial assistance. 29 U.S.C. §701 et seq.
55. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, codified at 29 U.S.C. §794, mandates that “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . .”

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 11 of 75
56. The definition of “individual with a disability” for the purposes of Section 504 is cross-referenced to the definition found in the Americans with Disabilities Act: an individual with a disability is a person with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; with a record of such an impairment; or who is regarded as having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. §12102(1).
57. The definition of “program or activity” for the purposes of Section 504 includes all of the operations of both “a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government” and “a local educational agency (as defined in section 7801 of title 20), system of vocational education, or other school system.” 29 U.S.C. §794(b).
58. Local educational agency is defined in 20 U.S.C. §7801 as “a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.”
59. 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(a) requires that recipients of federal funds who operate elementary or secondary schools must “provide a free appropriate public education to each qualified handicapped person who is in the recipient's jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the person's handicap.”

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 12 of 75
60. Under 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(d), a recipient “may not exclude any qualified handicapped person from a public elementary or secondary education . . . .”
61. Under 34 C.F.R. § 104.34(a), a recipient “shall provide for the education of each qualified handicapped person in its jurisdiction with persons who are not handicapped to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the handicapped person. A recipient shall place a handicapped person in the regular educational environment operated by the recipient unless it is demonstrated by the recipient that the education of the person in the regular environment with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” The Americans with Disabilities Act
62. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq., prohibits discrimination based upon disability by public entities.
63. 42 U.S.C. §12132 makes it unlawful for a qualified individual with a disability, by reason of such disability, to be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
64. Disability under the ADA is defined as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. §12102(1).
65. A public entity is defined by the ADA as, among other things, any State or local government or any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government. 42 U.S.C. §12131(1).
66. The term "qualified individual with a disability" is defined as an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules,

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 13 of 75
policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
67. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(3) bars public entities from utilizing methods of administration that “have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability.”
68. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d) requires public entities to “administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.”
69. 28 C.F.R. §35.130(h) prohibits public entities from imposing safety requirements based on “mere speculation, stereotypes or generalizations about individuals with disabilities.” New York State Constitution
70. Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution guarantees the right of people to free of unreasonable searches and seizures. New York City Human Rights Law
71. Pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public accommodation because of the actual or perceived . . . disability to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof . . . .” Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-107(4)(a).

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 14 of 75
72. The term “‘place or provider of public accommodation’ . . . include[s] providers, whether licensed or unlicensed, of goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind, and places, whether licensed or unlicensed, where goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind are extended, offered, sold or otherwise made available.” Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-102(9).
73. A private cause of action for violations of the New York City Human Rights Law is created by Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-502.
74. Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-130 states that the Human Rights Law should be construed “liberally for the accomplishment of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal or New York State civil and human rights laws, including those laws with provisions comparably-worded to provisions of this title have been so construed.” NYCDOE Chancellor’s Regulations
75. Defendant Fariña and her predecessors have issued “Chancellor’s Regulations” to provide guidance to NYCDOE personnel regarding NYCDOE policies.
76. Each school must maintain a “school safety plan” detailing the school’s policy regarding possible emergency situations. Chancellor’s Regulation A-414.
77. Chancellor’s Regulation A-412, Security and the Schools, requires and authorizes NYCDOE personnel to call 911 when a student requires immediate medical attention. The principal must be contacted immediately after the 911 call and must proceed to the scene with a trained medical professional. The student’s parent must also be notified immediately. If the parent is not present when the ambulance arrives, a school employee must accompany the student to the emergency room.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 15 of 75
78. Chancellor’s Regulation A-701, School Health Services, also requires and authorizes NYCDOE personnel to call 911 when a student requires immediate medical attention, mandates that the student’s parent be called, and mandates that a school employee accompany the student to the emergency room if the parent is not present when the ambulance arrives.
79. Chancellor’s Regulation A-443, Student Discipline Process, requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any student can be barred from attending their school. FDNY Regulations
80. The FDNY has issued regulations to provide guidance to its EMS personnel regarding interactions with minors.
81. Section 106-05 of the FDNY EMS Operating Guide Procedures, dated March 15, 1999, describes the protocol for the “Treatment & Transport of a Minor from the Scene of an Assignment.”
82. Section 106-05 authorizes transportation of minors by EMS over a parent’s objection only when the minor has a life-threatening condition or injury and it is apparent that even a minor delay will jeopardize the life or health of the minor.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Background
83. The problem of abuse of emergency medical services by public schools is well-known to the city, NYCDOE, and the commissioner defendants. For almost a decade, advocates and medical practitioners have raised concerns about the improper use of emergency medical services to forcibly remove children from public schools. See, e.g., New York Times SchoolBook, Sept. 23, 2013 (quoting an emergency room

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 16 of 75
physician stating “[i]t feels like we are being used as a dumping ground by the schools”); Hospitals Say City Schools Use them as a Cure-All, New York Times, May 18, 2004 (quoting an emergency room physician as stating “[ s]o many of the school referrals are ‘dumps’ of misbehaving children”); The New Craze Schools Using ERs as Dumping Ground Educators Shuttling Surly Students to City’s White Coats, Daily News, May 17, 2004 (quoting the head of one hospital’s Comprehensive Emergency Services as stating “Schools are overcrowded, teachers overworked, so they send us kids they just don’t want to deal with –or don’t know how to deal with them. But the kids aren’t having a mental crisis,” and quoting a Director of Pediatric Psychiatry as saying “A trip to the emergency room, even if it is done well, is the worst introduction to mental health services you can give a child.”).
84. In response to the growing number of students being sent to hospital emergency rooms in seemingly non-urgent situations, the New York City Council Education and Mental Health Committees conducted a public hearing to investigate this issue on May 1, 2012.
85. The New York City Public Advocate’s Office, under Mayor-Elect de Blasio, also raised concerns over the number of students removed from schools to hospital emergency rooms for behavioral issues. See, e.g., Public Advocate Seeks Data on Children Sent to ER, Wall Street Journal, (April 9, 2013) (stating that “schools are calling 911 to deal with behavioral outbursts and thousands of schoolchildren are being sent to hospitals at their parents’ expense”).

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 17 of 75
86. Data maintained by the defendants further demonstrates that the practice of removing children from the public schools by ambulance because of difficult or disruptive behaviors is both longstanding and widespread.
87. According to Fire Department data obtained by plaintiffs’ counsel through the Freedom of Information Law, the FDNY responded to approximately 18,000 emergency calls for an emotionally disturbed person from New York City school locations from 2005 through 2010 for an average of almost 3,000 calls per calendar year. The 18,000 calls originated from over 1,000 schools from across all five boroughs.
88. The FDNY data is consistent with NYCDOE data, also obtained by plaintiff’s counsel through the Freedom of Information Law, which shows that in each school year from 2009-2010 through 2011-2012, over 3,000 calls were made to EMS due to alleged disruptive behaviors. Over those three school years, the number of calls to EMS by NYC public schools to respond to students with alleged disruptive behaviors increased each year. By 2011-2012, over 3,600 calls were made to EMS by NYC public schools to respond to alleged disruptive behaviors by students. These data also show that the calls are made from hundreds of schools each year in all five boroughs.
89. Upon information and belief, the majority of students removed from New York City public schools by EMS are students with disabilities or students perceived as having a disability. J.H.
90. Plaintiff J.H. is now six years old. He began attending kindergarten at Grant Avenue Elementary School in the Bronx in September 2012, when he was five. He is now in the first grade. He lives with his mother, T.H., and his eight year old

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 18 of 75
brother and his thirteen year old sister in the Bronx. J.H. has or is perceived by NYCDOE to have a disability.
91. On October 26, 2012, the school called Ms. H. and told her that an ambulance had been called for her son and that she should come to the school immediately. When Ms. H. asked what was going on, she was told it would be explained when she got to the school.
92. When Ms. H. arrived at the school, she was told that J.H. had already been taken to Lincoln Hospital. When she asked why her son had been taken to the hospital, a staff member told her that he had been acting up and that there had been no other way to control him, but did not further explain what had happened. While she was at the school, she was given a form for the hospital to sign before J.H. could return to school.
93. Ms. H. then removed her older son, T.H., from his class at Grant Avenue Elementary because she was concerned she would not return in time for his dismissal at the end of the school day. Ms. H. and T.H. rushed to the emergency room at Lincoln Hospital, where she found J.H. sitting calmly with a teacher’s aide. The aide could not or would not say what had happened at the school. When Ms. H. asked J.H. what happened, he told her, “They were bothering me.” According to hospital records, J.H. told hospital staff that he got into a fight with a security guard at the school when he wanted to go back to music class when he was not supposed to. Those records also say that throughout his interview with hospital staff J.H. was “well-behaved and easily redirected by prompts from his mother.”

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 19 of 75
94. When Ms. H. tried to leave the emergency room with J.H., a nurse told her that she could not leave until three different staff members had met with J.H.
95. Ms. H. spent several hours in the emergency room with J.H. while he was seen by the three staff members who the hospital wanted to see him. Ms. H. desperately wanted to leave the hospital so she could pick up her daughter from school. She had no way to contact her daughter, who she knew did not have a key and would not be able to get into their apartment. She was concerned for her daughter’s safety because they live in an unsafe neighborhood. The hospital would not let her leave until she received the discharge papers. When she tried to leave, hospital staff called the police and the police physically blocked her from leaving the hospital. It took about an hour from the time she tried to leave until she got the discharge papers and was finally permitted to leave.
96. By the time Ms. H., T.H. and J.H. left the hospital it was too late to pick up J.H.’s sister from school. She was waiting in their building, locked out of the apartment.
97. On the next school day, Ms. H. brought J.H. to school and gave the school the form from the hospital. She was given no written incident report for the October 26 incident and was told nothing more than that the school’s staff had been unable to calm him down and that he had been jumping, running around, and hitting people.
98. On November 13, 2012, the school again phoned Ms. H. and told her an ambulance had been called for her son. Ms. H. rushed to the school. This time, she arrived at the school prior to J.H.’s being removed by EMS. She found him between a window gate and a closed window in a stairwell surrounded by close to ten adults

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 20 of 75
including EMS personnel, police, and school employees. She coaxed him into her arms, but when she said she wanted to bring him home, she was told by school employees and by EMS staff that he had to be taken to the hospital.
99. Ms. H. again removed T.H. from class so he could accompany her and J.H. to the hospital. Ms. H. was again concerned that she would not be able to return to Grant Avenue Elementary in time for dismissal for T.H.
100. Ms. H. and T.H. accompanied J.H. to Lincoln Hospital in the ambulance and this time the hospital signed the paperwork to permit J.H. to return to school and released him in less than an hour. Then they went home. According to hospital records, J.H. was referred to the hospital for evaluation for “not listening” and because he “refused to sit on a rug.”
101. Again, by the time they were permitted to leave the hospital, J.H.’s sister was home from school, locked out of the apartment, and Ms. H. was unable to contact her. Because of these repeated incidents and in fear for her daughter’s safety, she bought her daughter a cell phone so that they could contact each other if Ms. H. had to go to the hospital with J.H. again.
102. On the next school day, Ms. H. brought J.H. to school and gave the school the form from the hospital. She was given no written incident report regarding what had happened on November 13 and was told only that he had been running, jumping around, and hitting people.
103. After the November 13 incident, Ms. H. asked for and received permission to observe her son at school without his knowledge. She did so on several occasions and never saw him engage in aggressive or out-of-control behavior. Ms. H.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 21 of 75
wanted to try moving J.H. to another teacher to see if that would help with the behavior problems, but the school would not permit J.H. to move, even though several other children had already been moved out of his classroom.
104. On December 12, 2012, the school again called Ms. H. to tell her they had called EMS to take J.H. to the hospital. Ms. H. rushed to the school. When she got there, she was told that J.H. had already been taken to Lincoln Hospital by ambulance.
105. Ms. H. rushed to Lincoln Hospital, but when she arrived there, she was told that her son was not there. She frantically called the school, worried that the ambulance might have been in an accident, and she was told that her son had actually been taken to St. Barnabas Hospital. It took her a long time to get to the correct hospital because she did not have money for a cab and had to take the bus to both hospitals. She had to call a friend from Lincoln Hospital for directions because she did not know where St. Barnabas Hospital was or which bus to take to get there.
106. At St. Barnabas, she found J.H. in a psychiatric ward with six adults. He had been changed out of his clothes and into hospital-issued pajamas: a pajama shirt, pajama pants, and slipper socks. A person from the school was there with him.
107. According to hospital records, the aide told emergency room staff that J.H. had been “out of control at school. They didn’t know what to do.” The same records state that J.H. was “playful” and “smiling” at the hospital.
108. After spending about an hour at the hospital, Ms. H. was permitted to bring J.H. home. Ms. H. was in a rush to leave the hospital because she was worried about leaving in time to pick up T.H. from school.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 22 of 75

109. On the next school day, Ms. H. accompanied J.H. to school and gave the

school staff the necessary paperwork from the hospital. Again, she was given no written

incident report regarding what had happened on December 12. She was told only that

J.H. had not been listening, ran out of the classroom, and hit students and teachers.

110. On December 14, 2012, the school again called Ms. H and told her that

they had called an ambulance for J. H. When she got to the school, she found J.H.

outside, strapped down to a stretcher wearing only a t-shirt on the cold December day.

All of the staff members were wearing coats but J.H. was strapped to the stretcher crying

without any coat or sweater. Ms. H. gave J.H. her coat. She became very upset at the

school staff and began crying herself. As she prepared to ride in the ambulance with J.H.

to the hospital, she pulled T.H. out of school again because she was worried that she

would not be able to return in time to pick him up from school. T.H. was at lunch at that

time, so they brought his lunch with them and also brought J.H.’s lunch to the

ambulance. Ms. H., J.H., and T.H. all rode together in the ambulance to Lincoln

Hospital.

111. According to hospital notes, J.H. was sent to the hospital because he had

hit and kicked his teacher after she drew on his paper when he did not want her to. He

told the hospital staff that his teacher does not like him and that she makes him angry a

lot. The notes also indicate that J.H. was “well-behaved and easily redirected by

prompts from his mother.”

112.

After Ms. H., J.H., and T.H. spent an hour or two in the

emergency room, she was given the signed clearance form she needed to give to the

school and was permitted to take J.H. home.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 23 of 75
113. On the next school day, Ms. H. brought J.H. to school and gave the school the form from the hospital. She was given no written incident report regarding what had happened on December 14 and was told nothing more than the school’s staff had been unable to calm him down after he became upset over something his teacher did.
114. School staff stopped calling EMS for J.H. after an attorney began advocating on Ms. H. and J.H.’s behalf in late December 2012.The school instead required Ms. H. to pick J.H. up early almost every day for about a month. School staff then required J.H. to attend school on a part-time schedule and J.H. only attended school until 11:00 a.m. for the rest of the 2012-2013 school year. School staff also prohibited him from attending field trips unless accompanied by Ms. H.
115. Ms. H. lost her job as a night guard at a homeless shelter. Ms. H. suffered poor work performance as a result of the nearly daily calls from school officials regarding J.H.’s behavior. Unable to get adequate sleep during the morning hours, she repeatedly was too tired to stay awake at work. She then went on unemployment, went into arrears with her rent and currently is facing eviction She then got a job as a customer service representative in August 2013 but had to leave the job a month later partly due to multiple appointments she has to attend to regarding the eviction proceedings. She has also received bills from the hospitals and from EMS, which she has no way to pay.
116. Ms. H. consented to have J.H. evaluated by the NYCDOE for special education services in November 2012. The NYCDOE administered a psychological and

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 24 of 75
an educational evaluation for J.H. but never conducted a psychiatric evaluation as part of their initial evaluation.
117. Upon information and belief, while awaiting the completion of the special education evaluation process, school officials did not provide J.H. with any formal services or accommodations to address J.H.’s behaviors.
118. On January 18, 2013, an IEP meeting was held at the school and J.H. was found to be eligible for special education services and J.H. was given a classification of emotional disturbance. For the 2013-2014 school year, J.H. is enrolled in a 12:1:1 special class program at Grant Avenue Elementary School.
119. On or about November 1, 2013, school officials from Grant Avenue Elementary School called Ms. H. and advised her that J.H. was acting out and Ms. H. needed to go to the school right away. Ms. H. was also told that J.H. was in the guidance counselor’s office.
120. Ms. H. proceeded to the school right after the phone call. Upon arriving at the school, Ms. H. proceeded to the guidance counselor’s office where she found her son J.H. being physically held by the school safety agent. Ms. H. asked the school safety agent to let J.H. go and she picked him up. Ms. H. spoke to the school safety agent who advised her that J.H. would be sent to the emergency room. Ms. H. asked school staff why EMS was called if the school officials knew she was on her way to the school. The school safety agent interjected and stated that it was her decision to call EMS.
121. When EMS arrived, Ms. H. asked the EMT’s if they had to take J.H. and she was told J.H. had to go to the hospital. Ms. H. then accompanied J.H. to Lincoln Hospital along with T.H., whom she removed from school early again. Once at the

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 25 of 75
hospital, the nurse gave Ms. H. a document to sign to consent to the evaluation of J.H.. Ms. H. declined to sign it because she did not believe J.H. needed an evaluation at that time and left the hospital with her sons.
122. J.H. received an in-school suspension as a result of this incident but returned to school on the next school day. Ms. H. never received any documents related to the incident on November 1, 2013.
123. As a result of the school’s practice of repeatedly having J.H. removed by EMS, J.H. is no longer eager to go to school, is afraid of and dislikes the police, and is afraid of going to the hospital. W.P.
124. W.P. is five years old and resides in Manhattan with his parents, K.P. and G.P. and his newborn brother. Since September 9, 2013, he has attended kindergarten at NEST+M School (“NEST”) in Manhattan. W.P. has or is perceived by NYDOE as having a disability.
125. On Friday, September 20, 2013, K.P. received a telephone call from the assistant principal for the Lower School. Without providing any details or explanation, the assistant principal informed K.P. that the school was unable to control W.P.’s behavior and that they had called 911 to transport W.P. to the emergency room. K.P., who works in midtown Manhattan and at the time was nine months pregnant, was told she had 10-20 minutes to get to the school before EMS would take W.P. to the hospital. K.P. pleaded with the school to wait for her arrival before having W.P. removed. The school insisted they would not wait.
126. K.P. alerted her husband, G.P., to the situation, and G.P. was able to reach the school before W.P. had been taken to the hospital. Upon G.P.’s arrival at

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 26 of 75
NEST, he found W.P. sitting calmly and quietly in the main school office with his feet up on a chair. Five police officers stood at the entrance to the office. G.P. immediately asked the police officers to call off the request for EMS.
127. G.P. met with the assistant principal and the principal in the principal’s office to discuss the incident. G.P. was informed that W.P. had been “running around and almost broke a table,” and was like a “mini Hulk.” W.P.’s teacher and the school’s guidance counselor subsequently joined the conversation in the principal’s office. The school representatives explained to G.P. that W.P. had been pulled out of class and was unable to “calm down.” The assistant principal informed G.P. that in such situations, when there is allegedly concern for the child’s safety or the safety of others, it is the school’s policy to call EMS. The assistant principal described the policy in front of the principal, who nodded in agreement. G.P. has since had at least one additional conversation in which this policy was reiterated by other school representatives. At times, school officials also stated that it is their policy to call the security guard, who in turn has been trained to call EMS.
128. Despite W.P.’s calm demeanor, G.P. decided to take W.P. home for the rest of the day. G.P. was able to coax an explanation from W.P. for his behavior, which evidently resulted from a simple disagreement with another student on the playground who had refused to return a ball.
129. Two weeks later, in the midst of K.P.’s giving birth to W.P.’s brother by caesarian section, G.P. received a message that the school had again called EMS to remove W.P. from school. After the birth of their new son, G.P. called the school and spoke to a police officer who was present at the school. At this point, G.P. was told that

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 27 of 75
W.P. was sitting calmly in the office, and G.P. informed the police officer again that he did not want W.P. to be removed by EMS. G.P. informed both the police officer and the assistant principal that his mother-in-law would arrive shortly at the school, since he was at the hospital with his wife, who had just given birth.
130. K.P.’s mother arrived at NEST within twenty minutes, but W.P. had nonetheless already been taken to the Beth Israel emergency room, apparently by police officers. K.P.’s mother rushed to the hospital and reached W.P. before he had been formally admitted. When she found him, W.P. was sitting quietly with two police officers and a paraprofessional from NEST who had accompanied him to the hospital.
131. After the October 3 incident, K.P.’s mother volunteered to spend time at NEST with W.P. for a few days in the hope that the school would avoid repeating such drastic measures.
132. On October 16, 2013, NEST’s guidance counselor again called G.P. to inform him that the school had once again called EMS to remove W.P. G.P. contacted K.P., who rushed to the school with her two-week-old son. Upon her arrival, K.P. found W.P. calmly sitting at a table with the principal and three police officers in the office.
133. K.P. requested immediately that the police officers call off the request for EMS; however, the ambulance arrived at the school nonetheless. K.P. insisted that her calm child need not be transported to the hospital and signed a release form at EMS’ request. At K.P.’s suggestion, the principal allowed W.P., who had been sitting calmly, to rejoin his class.
134. Despite multiple meetings with NEST administrators since the beginning of the school year about how to address W.P.’s behavioral issues, the school initiated no

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 28 of 75
formal evaluation process until K.P. and G.P. submitted a formal written request for an IEP process on October 14, 2013. Only then did NEST appear to have a social worker assigned to work on pursuing an evaluation for W.P. Over the course of the past two months, K.P. and G.P. have spent considerable resources on private evaluations of W.P., as well as training of school staff.
135. NEST’s excessive and reflexively dramatic response to W.P.’s behavioral problems has created a situation in which K.P. and G.P. live in fear that the next phone call will be notification that their frightened five-year-old son has been taken to the hospital by EMS or the police because he had some difficulty in the classroom. W.P. himself has expressed his worries that the police might take him away again. J.R.
136. J.R. is a five year old first grade student currently attending Public School 149 in Manhattan. He lives with his mother, K.J., and grandmother, L.J., in Manhattan. J.R. has or is perceived by NYCDOE to have a disability.
137. K.J. initially enrolled J.R. in kindergarten at PS 149 in January 2013. Prior to attending PS 149, J.R. attended a charter school.
138. Soon after K.J. enrolled J.R. at PS 149, K.J. began to receive almost daily telephone calls from school staff at PS 149 regarding J.R.’s behavior. Most often, staff from PS 149 stated that J.R. was unfocused, not on task and acting up because he did not want to be in school. Often, school staff requested that K.J. pick up J.R. and bring him home prior to dismissal.
139. If school staff were unable to reach K.J. by phone, they would call K.J.’s mother, L.J. On a number of occasions, K.J. and L.J. were told that if they did not come

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 29 of 75
to pick up J.R. immediately, the school would call an ambulance to take J.R. to an emergency room.
140. On one occasion, sometime between January 2013 and April 2013, school staff contacted K.J. advising her that an ambulance had been called for J.R. because he was acting out. K.J. could not leave work immediately and arranged for L.J. to go to the school in response to the phone call. L.J. arrived at the school before the ambulance and convinced school staff to allow J.R. to go home with her.
141. On April 29, 2013, J.R. was involved in an incident at PS 149. He became upset after his teacher grabbed his hand during recess. He began to scream, jump on desks and throw himself against lockers.
142. Staff at PS 149 called 911 and also contacted K.J. by telephone to advise her that they had called an ambulance for J.R. K.J. was advised by school officials that J.R. could not return to the school until he was evaluated at the hospital. Because K.J. was at work, she could not go immediately to the school. Instead, she contacted J.R.’s father, H.R. He and L.J. then both proceeded to the school.
143. L.J. arrived at school before H.R. and noticed that police officers and emergency medical technicians were all around J.R., were touching him, and had him sitting on the floor. L.J. asked the officers and technicians to get their hands off him. L.J. was then able to calm J.R. down. L.J. stated that she was going to take him home. School staff, the police officers and the emergency medical technicians all stated that J.R. had to go to the hospital. They stated that once an ambulance has been called to a school, the student has to go to the hospital.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 30 of 75
144. H.R. then arrived at the school and he accompanied J.R. to Mount Sinai Hospital in the ambulance. L.J. had to return to work and did not accompany them to the hospital.
145. J.R. was admitted to the emergency room at Mt. Sinai at 12:45 p.m. The treating physician noted that officials at PS 149 had called EMS because they could not control his behavior and felt he needed an evaluation.
146. When J.R. met with the doctor, he was sitting calmly and said he was no longer angry. He said that when he is very upset, he throws tantrums. He said he did not want to hurt himself or anyone else. The doctors diagnosed J.R. with disruptive behavior disorder and discharged him at 2:51 p.m. His discharge plan stated that he could return to normal daily activities and his parents were given referrals for him to outpatient mental health services.
147. After this incident, K.J. wanted to find outpatient psychiatric services for J.R., but medical insurance issues prevented her from arranging an initial intake appointment for two months. Eventually, K.J. secured an initial appointment with a psychiatrist. However K.J. was concerned that the doctor immediately wanted to prescribe medication for J.R. without considering other options and decided to seek treatment elsewhere.
148. As a result of the incident on April 29, 2013, PS 149 issued an out of school suspension to J.R. He was sent to PS 144 in Manhattan for his suspension.
149. On May 9, 2013, school staff from PS 144 contacted K.J. and advised her that J.R. was having an outburst. K.J. advised them that L.J. was going to the school to pick up J.R. Soon thereafter school officials then called back and stated that J.R. was

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 31 of 75
being transported to the hospital. K.J. asked if they could delay sending J.R. to the hospital until she arrived there because she was unable to leave work immediately and the school official said no. L.J. arrived at PS 144 just as the emergency medical technicians were escorting J.R. out of the building. L.J. did not attempt to request that J.R. be allowed to go home with her because she felt the EMT’s and the police would not allow her.
150. J.R. was admitted to the emergency department at Mount Sinai Hospital at 1:35 p.m. According to hospital records, he was calm, appeared well and was in no distress. The records state that J.R. got in trouble at school for running in the hall with another boy and was forced to sit at the “bad” table in the cafeteria. J.R. then got in trouble for standing up when he was not supposed to and was sent to the principal’s office where he became angrier and acted out by hitting staff, yelling kicking, and trying to run away. The records also state that J.R. told an emergency medical technician that he wanted to stab her. According to his grandmother, J.R. said this in response to the EMT stating that J.R. was a “bad kid.”
151. J.R. was discharged at 3:41p.m., a little over two hours after he was admitted. The discharge documents noted that he was diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorder, not otherwise specified, and was cleared to return to normal activities.
152. On May 15, 2013, after J.R. had completed his suspension at PS 144 and had returned to PS 149, K.J. was advised by staff at PS 149 that J.R. had been involved in another incident. She was told that J.R. had climbed on a cabinet during an outburst. The school informed her that J.R. would be sent to the hospital. K.J. contacted her

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 32 of 75
brother S.J. and he was able to go to PS 149 right away. K.J. asked school officials to release J.R. to S.J., but school officials denied K.J.’s request.
153. K.J. left work early in order to respond to the situation at PS 149. When she arrived at PS 149, K.J. observed EMS technicians and police officers with her son in addition to school staff. The EMS technicians, the police officers and school staff all told K.J. that J.R. had no other option than to go to the hospital. K.J. did not attempt to ask if she could take her son home because the police, school staff, and EMT’s all made it clear on this occasion and on prior occasions that he had to be transported to the hospital.
154. EMS again transported J.R. to the emergency department at Mount Sinai where he arrived at 4:20 p.m. The treating physician noted that J.R. was calm and cooperative during his interview. J.R. denied being depressed, suicidal or homicidal. J.R. was unable to explain why he was aggressive at school but “nodded” in agreement that he did not want to be aggressive again.
155. The treating physician at Mount Sinai administered a violence risk assessment to J.R. and determined there was a low risk of violence. K.J. was advised to follow up with outpatient child psychiatry for J.R.’s disruptive behavior disorder. J.R. was discharged at 7:51 p.m.
156. In or about the middle of May 2013, PS 149 finally initiated an evaluation of J.R. to determine his eligibility for special education services. On June 21, 2013, an IEP team met and determined that J.R. was eligible for special education services. J.R. was assigned a classification of emotional disturbance. He has been assigned to a special class with a small student to staff ratio, but the school has

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 33 of 75
continued to respond inappropriately to J.R.’s behavioral problems. As recently as November 18, 2013, K.J. was again told that if she did not pick up J.R. as soon as possible, PS 149 would call for an ambulance to transport J.R. to an emergency room,
157. K.J. often receives phone calls from PS 149 at work regarding J.R.’s behavior issues. The calls have caused K.J. to experience significant stress, anxiety and depression which affected her work performance. K.J. was suspended by her employer in May 2013 for poor work performance and has had to change her work schedule repeatedly to be able to respond to the constant calls from PS 149.
J.M. 158. Plaintiff J.M. is fifteen years old and is in the tenth grade at Astor
Collegiate Academy in the Bronx. He lives with his mother, C.J., in the Bronx. He was previously enrolled at Lehman High School (“Lehman”) from the beginning of ninth grade through March 2013.
159. J.M. was diagnosed with ADHD when he was five. In July 2012, his diagnosis was changed to Asperger’s Syndrome. J.M. has or is perceived to have by NYCDOE a disability.
160. When J.M. was in middle school at I.S. 206 in the Bronx, an IEP was developed for him. The IEP included a crisis management paraprofessional, testing accommodations, group counseling, and a Behavior Intervention Plan. The BIP included a provision permitting J.M. to call his mother during the day if he was feeling anxious as a last resort.
161. In June 2012, Ms. J. met with Mr. Pagan, a guidance counselor, at Lehman to select classes and to fill out paperwork regarding J.M.’s high school

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 34 of 75
admission. Mr. Pagan asked Ms. J. if J.M. had an IEP, and Ms. J. responded that he did. Ms. J. asked Mr. Pagan if he was going to note this and he said he would, but he did not do so in Ms. J.’s presence.
162. In July 2012 at freshman orientation, before J.M. began attending Lehman, Ms. J. met Thomasina Brown, who she later found out was J.M.’s guidance counselor, and Mr. Carucci, the assistant principal for the Anne Hutchinson Academy at Lehman. Ms. J. had concerns about Lehman, so she took this opportunity to ask questions of both of them. Mr. Carucci explained the different academies at Lehman. Ms. Brown answered questions about the school’s orientation presentation. J.M.’s disability and the IEP were not discussed.
163. On J.M.’s first day at Lehman in September 2012, Ms. J. saw Ms. Brown again. She approached Ms. Brown and asked to meet with all of J.M.’s teachers regarding his IEP. During the rest of September, Ms. J. tried to reach Ms. Brown many times, but the phones at the school were not working properly so she was unable to reach her or leave a message.
164. On September 28, 2012, Ms. J. was at Lehman for a Parent Association Executive Board meeting in her capacity as Vice President of the Parent Association. While she was at the school, she went to say hello to Ms. Brown and on the way, she ran into Ms. Brown and Mr. Tirado, one of the deans for the Ann Hutchinson Academy. They told her that they were glad that she “caught them in the hallway” and asked her if anyone had called her about J.M. They told her that J.M. had used inappropriate language with a girl in the lunchroom. As a result, they pulled her into a conference room to an unplanned meeting with Ms. J. and Ms. Brown; Mr. Tirado; Mr. Carruci; Ms.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 35 of 75
Cabrejos, the Director of Student Services; and Ms. Cember, the Director of the committee on Special Education.
165. At the meeting it became clear to Ms. J. that despite its being three weeks into the school year and even though she had already spoken to Ms. Brown twice about J.M., no one at the meeting was familiar with J.M.’s IEP. Each administrator seemed to be looking at the IEP for the first time. Ms. Brown admitted that she had not previously read the IEP.
166. As they began to flip through the IEP, Ms. Brown said that the school had never provided group counseling, which is one of the support services provided in J.M.’s IEP. Ms. Cember suggested that the testing accommodation in J.M.’s IEP be removed and his disability classification be changed. Ms. Cember asked for Ms. J.’s permission to change J.M.’s IEP, but Ms. J. told them she was not interested in changes to the IEP before it had even been followed by school staff. Rather, she expected them to first comply with the IEP.
167. On November 9, 2012, Ms. J. found out from J.M. that he had attended his first group counseling session of the school year. Ms. J. never received any notice from the school that the group counseling sessions had finally begun.
168. On November 13, 2012, J.M. took a geometry test without the testing accommodations required by his IEP. He felt he might have done poorly. Out of frustration, he ran a pen down his forearm. He did not cut or scratch himself, but after this incident Ms. J. received a call from Principal Rose Lobianco, who told her that she had the opportunity to pick J.M. up from school as a “courtesy” and if she did not the school would call EMS to have him taken to a hospital. Ms. J. left to pick up J.M.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 36 of 75
immediately. She received a total of five phone calls from Ms. Brown and Principal Lobianco as she was on her way to the school. They told her that J.M. hurt his arm. Ms. J. thought he needed to go to the doctor and called J.M.’s pediatrician to make an appointment while she was in the cab; she cancelled it later when she was told by the principal that the school nurse said J.M.’s arm was fine. She repeatedly asked to talk to J.M. and she was eventually permitted to speak to J.M., who was in the guidance counselor’s office, where the nurse had checked his arm. When Ms. J. got to the school, he was still in the guidance counselor’s office and Ms. J. took him home. Ms. Cabrejo wanted to speak with Ms. J. and Ms. J. declined to speak to her. Ms. J. took J.M. home and he stayed home from school the next day so he could go to the psychiatrist. J.M. explained to the psychiatrist that the reason for the incident was that he was frustrated and thought he did not do well on his test.
169. After J.M. returned to school on November 15, Ms. Cabrejo and Dean Tirado repeatedly asked Ms. J. to provide a doctor’s note saying that it was okay for J.M. to return to school. Ms. J. declined to provide such a letter because she understood that the school had no right to require her to do so.
170. After she declined to provide a letter to the school, the staff at Lehman retaliated by reporting to the City Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) that she was being neglectful of J.M. The ACS investigator, Mr. Massaquoi, initially told her that staff at Lehman had accused her of neglecting J.M. because of scratches on his arm. Later, Mr. Massaquoi told her the school was also accusing her of neglect because she was unwilling to reopen his IEP. ACS’s investigation found the report of neglect to be unfounded and the case was closed.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 37 of 75
171. Throughout the month of December, Ms. J. was repeatedly contacted by Ms. Cember, who continually asked Ms. J. to re-open J.M.’s IEP. Ms. J. continued to refuse, stating that she expected the school to comply with the IEP before any consideration was given to modifying it.
172. Because Ms. J. and J.M. were unhappy with Lehman, in December Ms. J. began the process of seeking a medical transfer to another school for J.M.’s sophomore year.
173. On January 9, 2013, Ms. J. was at the school regarding paperwork for the transfer. She had a disagreement Ms. Cabrejos, who was insisting on copies of all of the paperwork Ms. J. had to submit to the NYCDOE’s Office of Student Enrollment before she would sign off on the transfer application. Before Ms. J. left the school, she told J.M. that school was giving her a hard time about the transfer.
174. J.M. was upset about the difficulty his mother was having regarding the transfer application and, at around approximately 12:00 p.m., his English teacher noticed he was agitated in class. He asked to call his mother, but his teacher refused. Instead, she asked him to write down why he was feeling anxious. He wrote down his feelings and as he was putting them away in his binder, his teacher demanded that he give her what he had written.
175. J.M. had written, “Honestly I feel like something is bothering me and I don’t know what, and it’s making me get hype in a crazy way, and it’s in a bad way. I get something bothering me and it just gets me to the point I feel like I want to scream. Unable to work because of what’s happening.”
176. After English class, J.M. was able to call his mother from the main office

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 38 of 75
before going to lunch and he then felt better. J.M. continued throughout the rest of his school day without incident, but at the end of gym class, the last class of the day, Mr. Carruci and Ms. Brown came and escorted him to the principal’s office.
177. At 3:30, Ms. J. got a phone call from the principal, who told that the school had called EMS and that J.M. was going to be taken to the emergency room. She received no “courtesy call” this time. She asked why J.M. was being taken to the hospital and the principal told her she would find out when she got to the school. While on the way to the school, Ms. J. called back to see if the ambulance left yet, and she asked to speak to an EMS worker. She spoke to the EMT and he said that the ambulance had not left the school yet. She asked them to take J.M. to Montefiore because Montefiore accepts her insurance and the EMS worker agreed. He said he would explain what happened when she got there. Ms. J. was not permitted to talk to J.M.
178. Ms. J. arrived at the school around 3:50. She asked if she could bring J.M. to the psychiatrist and she was told she could not. In response to her question about why EMS had been called, the EMS worker showed her a written statement from J.M.’s English teacher in which she reported his agitation in her class and in which she claimed that, “Towards the end of the period, a girl started screaming in the hallway. [J.M.] turned abruptly to face the door, pointed his fingers toward the door as if his hand was [sic] a gun and then shouted the sounds of a shooting gun.” J.M. completely denies this. He has no recollection of anything even similar to this teacher’s account. After his English class, J.M. was permitted to continue with the rest of his school day without any intervention from the school’s administrators or teachers. They did not take him to the office or call EMS until two periods after English, until it was almost time for dismissal.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 39 of 75
179. EMS transported J.M. to Montefiore Hospital accompanied by Ms. J. According to an EMS worker, J.M.’s “chief complaint” was “I am fine.” The EMS worker noted that through the transport to the hospital, JM was observed to be “in position of comfort w/o change in status or further incident[].” The “presumptive diagnosis” noted by the EMS worker was “behavioral eval for threatening remarks.”
180. In the emergency room J.M. was evaluated by a nurse, a medical doctor and a psychiatrist. Each evaluation notes that J.M. was alert, cooperative and calm. JM was discharged eight minutes after meeting with the emergency room psychiatrist. The psychiatrist noted that J.M. had no current suicidal or homicidal ideation, plan or intent, that he was soft spoken, and that he was not dangerous. The psychiatrist detailed that during the interview the “patient was calm and cooperative and responsive [illegible].”
181. J.M. received no treatment from the hospital. J.M. was released without medication prescription and was simply advised to follow up with his own psychiatrist and was permitted to return to school the following day.
182. Ms. J. has not received a bill from the emergency room, but her insurance was billed.
183. In a mediation on March 21, 2013 about J.M’s IEP, it was agreed that J.M. would transfer out of Lehman. On April 4, Ms. J. went to the Student Enrollment Office and found out he was transferring to Astor Collegiate Academy. He began attending Astor on April 8, 2013.
184. As part of the mediation, it was agreed that the school would develop a new IEP for J.M. for the 2013-2014 school year.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 40 of 75
N.R. 185. N.R. is a six-year-old student who attends P.S. 19 in Queens. He
previously attended P.S. 165, which is also in Queens. He resides with his mother, Y.P., in Queens. N.R. has or is perceived to have by NYCDOE a disability.
186. N.R. first enrolled at P.S 165 as a pre-kindergarten student during the 2011-2012 school year. In September 2012, N.R. entered kindergarten at the school.
187. At the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, Y.P asked P.S 165 to evaluate N.R. for possible special education supports and services. She had made similar requests the year before, including a request for counseling in or about March of 2012 when N.R. attended pre-kindergarten at the school.
188. On October 4, 2012, Y.P. received a telephone call from the school informing her that N.R. was misbehaving by climbing under the table, jumping and throwing things and walking away. The school told her that the police had been called and threatened to have N.R. taken to the hospital. Y.P. asked school officials not to have N.R. taken to the hospital and to wait for her to get to the school from work, but they refused. Y.P. managed to contact her mother and asked her to go to the school to pick up N.R.
189. When Y.P’s mother arrived at the school, N.R. was surrounded by police officers and school personnel and was sitting calmly. Nonetheless, the principal would not allow N.R.’s grandmother to take him home. Y.P. got on the phone with the school and demanded that N.R. be turned over to her mother. The school refused and handed the telephone over to the police. Only after Y.P. got on the phone with the police and

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 41 of 75
complained strenuously, did they release N.R. to his grandmother. However, they threatened to arrest N.R. if he misbehaved in the future.
190. Following this incident with the school, N.R. became fearful when he saw police, heard sirens, or saw police cars or ambulances. He told his mother that he did not want to go to school because people at his school told him that they were going to call the police and the ambulance workers to come to get him.
191. On or about October 10, the school contacted Y.P. and told her that her son was again misbehaving by running and jumping around, going under the table, and hitting others. She was told to pick up N.R., so she left work to go to the school. When Y.P got there, she was told by school staff, Ms. Bonagura and Ms. Legions that N.R. could not return to school until he was psychiatrically evaluated and cleared by a doctor. They suggested that Y.P. take N.R. to Long Island Jewish Hospital (LIJH) for evaluation and told her that there must be something psychiatrically or neurologically wrong with N.R.
192. Because Y.P. could not bring her son for an evaluation until October, 12, 2012, and because the school would not permit him to return without medical clearance, he could not attend school for two days, October 11 and 12.
193. On October 12, Y.P. took N.R. to Long Island Jewish Hospital (“LIJH”) in order to comply with the school’s directive that he be evaluated and receive clearance before returning to school after the purported incident on October 10. Doctors and other hospital staff met with N.R., spoke to his mother and contacted the school. Y.P. explained that the behavior reported by the school was not consistent with his behavior at home. Hospital staff noted that NR was “cheerful, cooperative though restless during

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 42 of 75
interview” and found that NR “does not present as an imminent risk of hurting self or others.” LIJH released N.R. and sent him home with his mother. They provided Y.P. with a referral for outpatient counseling for N.R. which she followed up on.
194. On October 22, the school again called Y.P. at work and told her that EMS was at the school to take N.R. to the hospital.
195. Y.P. begged the school not to send her son to the hospital via EMS and asked school staff to wait for her to come and pick up her son. She was told by the principal and other members of staff that the school was in the business of teaching, not taking care of children and that they would not wait.
196. Y.P. contacted her mother and asked her to go to the school to be with N.R. N.R.’s grandmother met him at the school and accompanied him to the hospital with EMS. Although N.R. was calm when his grandmother arrived, the principal and assistant principal would not let her take N.R. home and insisted that EMS take him to the hospital. EMS workers removed N.R. against the wishes of his mother and grandmother.
197. Y.P. left work and went to LIJH to meet her mother and N.R. at the hospital as soon as she could.
198. At the hospital, N.R. was seen by numerous hospital personnel, including doctors and social workers. Hospital staff spoke to N.R., who was “calm and cooperative,” and called the school to find out why he had been sent by them. They evaluated his condition and cleared him for release to his mother.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 43 of 75
199. At no time prior to the events of October 2012 did the NYCDOE convene an IEP meeting or develop a Behavior Intervention Plan for N.R. nor, upon information and belief, did NYCDOE even complete a written evaluation of N.R.
200. In February 2013, an IEP review meeting took place at Y.P’s request and a recommendation was made for a 12:1:1 program in a community school for N.R. The IEP also mandated a one-to-one paraprofessional, counseling, speech and occupational therapy services. Thereafter, Y. P. enrolled N.R. at P.S 19 and he began attending a 12:1:1 program at the school.
201. P.S. 19 failed to provide N.R. with a one-on-one paraprofessional and all of his mandated supports and services, despite Y.P’s requests that the school do so. Staff at the school stated that they lacked resources and indicated that they would send her son to the ER if he misbehaved. In addition, shortly after N.R. arrived at P.S. 19, school officials informed Y.P. that she would have to pick her son up from school each day at 11:00 a.m. Fearing that the school would resort to inappropriate EMS intervention which would further traumatize her son, Y.P complied with this demand and collected her son early each day.
202. The shortened school day caused Y.P. great hardship, forcing her to adjust her schedule at work and to work later hours in order to keep her job.
203. Toward the end of the school year, Y.P met with school officials and again asked that NR receive all of his mandated IEP supports and services and that the school allow him to attend full-time as do all of the other children at the school.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 44 of 75
204. N.R. continues to be enrolled at P.S. 19. N.R. and Y.P fear that at any moment the defendants may resort to inappropriate use of EMS to address N.R.’s special needs and cause N.R to again be unnecessarily and unlawfully removed to the hospital.
D.E. 205. D.E. is a seven-year-old boy who was enrolled as a kindergarten student
at P.S. K255 in Brooklyn for the 2011-2012 school year. He had just turned five on September 6, 2011. It was his first year at P.S. K255.
206. D.E. is a special education student with an IEP. D.E. has been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”). A Behavior Intervention Plan (“BIP”) had been developed and established for DE in conjunction with his IEP. For the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years, DE attended a special education pre-school at P.S. M226. D.E. has or is perceived to have by NYCDOE a disability.
207. Though D.E. progressed remarkably well in terms of academic achievement and functional performance at P.S. M226, he exhibited social and behavioral deficits commonly associated with ASD. D.E. has significant difficulty with transitions, and becomes frustrated easily. D.E.’s frustration often manifests in the form of tantrums, which are common among children with ASD. This information was well known to NYCDOE, and was clearly discussed in his IEP. At P.S. M226, whenever D.E. had a tantrum, school personnel responded appropriately and helped him to calm down, such that he would remain in school with his classmates.
208. On June 7, 2011, following an IEP meeting, NYCDOE offered D.E. a placement in a 12:1:1 kindergarten classroom at P.S. K255. D.E.’s mother, M.E., complied with this recommendation.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 45 of 75
209. On September 22, 2011, after D.E. had been in kindergarten for about two weeks, he had tantrum at school. P.S. K255 personnel notified Ms. E., and asked her to come to the school. When Ms. E. arrived, she spoke with school personnel, sat in class with D.E., and then took him home.
210. On September 27, 2011, D.E. had another tantrum at school. D.E. showed no signs of injury. Nevertheless, P.S. K255 personnel summoned EMS and police, and then notified Ms. E. When Ms. E arrived, she found D.E., school personnel, EMS, and police in the school vestibule. D.E. was no longer having a tantrum, but a security guard was pinning him to the ground.
211. Ms. E rushed to comfort her terrified son, and asked if she could take D.E. home, but EMS told Ms. E that D.E. had to be taken by ambulance to the Coney Island Hospital psychiatric ward. EMS put D.E. in an ambulance, and Ms. E rode in the ambulance with D.E. and EMS to Coney Island Hospital.
212. Upon arriving at Coney Island Hospital, D.E. and Ms. E. were sent through the adult emergency room to triage. Afterward, they were told to wait for a pediatrician for a physical examination. The pediatrician only assessed D.E. and did not treat him or prescribe medication.
213. D.E. and Ms. E. were then told to wait for a psychiatrist for a psychiatric consultation. The psychiatrist only assessed D.E. and did not treat him or prescribe medication.
214. D.E. was then allowed to proceed to discharge on the basis that he did not require emergency services. The ordeal lasted approximately six hours, in which D.E. and Ms. E. were not allowed to leave and were neither provided food nor any

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 46 of 75
opportunity to get food. During that time, D.E. was hungry, tired, anxious, confused, and desperate to leave the hospital.
215. On October 6, 2011, D.E. had a tantrum at school. D.E. showed no signs of injury, but P.S. K255 personnel again summoned EMS and the police, and then notified Ms. E. Ms. E called her sister, Natasha Grall, and Ms. E and Ms. Grall each hurried to the school. Ms. Grall arrived in fifteen minutes. When she arrived, she found D.E., school personnel, EMS, and police in the principal’s office. D.E. was no longer having a tantrum.
216. Ms. Grall wanted to take D.E. home, but EMS stopped Ms. Grall and told her that D.E. had to be taken by ambulance to the Coney Island Hospital psychiatric ward. Within ten minutes of Ms. Grall’s arrival, Ms. E. arrived at the school by taxi. EMS put D.E. in an ambulance, and Ms. E. rode in the ambulance with D.E., Ms. Grall, and EMS to Coney Island Hospital.
217. Upon arriving at Coney Island Hospital, D.E. and Ms. E. found themselves in the same situation they had endured on September 27. First, they were sent through the adult emergency room to triage. Afterward, they were told to wait for a pediatrician for a physical examination. The pediatrician only assessed D.E. and did not treat him or prescribe medication. D.E. and Ms. E. were then told to wait for a psychiatrist for a psychiatric consultation. The psychiatrist only assessed D.E. and did not treat him or prescribe medication. D.E. was then allowed to proceed to discharge on the basis that he did not require emergency services. The ordeal lasted between four and six hours, in which D.E. and Ms. E. were not allowed to leave and were neither provided

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 47 of 75
food nor any opportunity to get food. During that time, D.E. was just as hungry, tired, anxious, confused, and desperate to leave the hospital as he had been on September 27.
218. On October 12, 2011, D.E. had a tantrum at school. D.E. showed no signs of injury. P.S. K255 personnel again summoned EMS and police, and then notified Ms. E. When Ms. E arrived, she found D.E., school personnel, EMS, and police in a classroom. DE was sitting under a table and was no longer having a tantrum, but he was crying and saying that he was scared of going to jail. Ms. E. asked if she could take D.E. home, but EMS told Ms. E that D.E. had to be taken by ambulance to the Coney Island Hospital psychiatric ward. EMS put D.E. in an ambulance, and Ms. E. rode in the ambulance with D.E. and EMS to Coney Island Hospital.
219. Upon arriving at Coney Island Hospital, D.E. and Ms. E found themselves in the same situation they had endured twice before. After triage, a physical examination by a pediatrician, and a psychiatric consultation by a psychiatrist, D.E. was allowed to proceed to discharge on the basis that he did not require emergency services. The ordeal again lasted between four and six hours without breaks or food. During that time, D.E. was just as hungry, tired, anxious, confused, and desperate to leave the hospital as he had been on prior occasions.
220. While at Coney Island Hospital on October 12, a nurse referred Ms. E. to a pediatric psychology walk-in clinic at Kings County Hospital Center. Ms. E. visited the walk-in clinic the next day, October 13, but clinic staff told her to return the following day, October 14. Ms. E. did so, and the walk-in clinic referred her to the Developmental Evaluation Clinic (“DEC”).

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 48 of 75
221. On October 14, 2011, Ms. E. met with a social worker at DEC for intake and to set up appointments for D.E. to be evaluated. The evaluations, including psychological and neurological evaluations, were scheduled to take place in late October and early November. Soon thereafter, Ms. E. notified P.S. K255 that D.E. was being independently evaluated. Ms. E had made attempts to have D.E. independently evaluated since September 28, the day after the first EMS incident, but had been denied services because of problems with her insurance.
222. On October 26, 2011, while the DEC’s independent evaluation of D.E. was ongoing, D.E. had a tantrum at school. D.E. showed no signs of injury. P.S. K255 personnel again summoned EMS and police, and then notified Ms. E. When Ms. E. arrived, she found D.E., school personnel, EMS, and police in the school library. Ms. Grall arrived separately at approximately the same time. D.E. was no longer having a tantrum. On this occasion, EMS told Ms. E. that she could take D.E. home. Ms. E. took D.E. home as permitted by EMS.
223. That evening, the Administration for Children’s Services contacted Ms. E. and told her that P.S. K255 personnel had filed an abuse and neglect report against her, alleging that Ms. E. had refused medical care for her son by refusing to allow EMS to take D.E. to Coney Island Hospital. ACS investigated the report but found it to be baseless, amended the report to show it was unfounded, and legally sealed the report.
224. On November 9, 2011, D.E. had a tantrum at school. D.E. showed no signs of injury. P.S. K255 personnel again summoned EMS and police, then notified Ms. E. When Ms. E arrived, she found D.E., school personnel, EMS, and police on the third floor of the school. DE was no longer having a tantrum, but he was crying and saying

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 49 of 75
that he was scared of being in trouble. Ms. E. asked if she could take D.E. home, but EMS told Ms. E. that D.E. had to be taken by ambulance to the Coney Island Hospital psychiatric ward. EMS put D.E. in an ambulance, and Ms. E. rode in the ambulance with D.E. and EMS to Coney Island Hospital.
225. Upon arriving at Coney Island Hospital, D.E. and Ms. E. found themselves in the same situation they had endured three times before. After triage, a physical examination by a pediatrician, and a psychiatric consultation by a psychiatrist, D.E. was allowed to proceed to discharge on the basis that he did not require emergency services. The ordeal again lasted between four and six hours without breaks or food. During that time, D.E. was just as hungry, tired, anxious, confused, and desperate to leave the hospital as he had been on prior occasions.
226. In response to these incidents, D.E. became more and more resistant to going to school. Ms. E was afraid that the pattern would never stop, and that whenever D.E. had a tantrum, P.S. K255 might contact EMS and police and further traumatize him. Ms. E. was also afraid that P.S. K255 personnel would continue filing baseless reports with ACS. As a result, Ms. E. began keeping D.E. home from school more often. If D.E. was acting up or having a bad day, Ms. E. decided that it was not worth the risk that he might tantrum, and be subjected to another EMS ordeal. Ms. E. also kept D.E. home unless she could accompany him to school, or was absolutely sure that, for the duration of the school day, either she or her sister would be close enough to the school to respond in the event that they were notified of a tantrum.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 50 of 75
227. On December 21, 2011, DEC professionals responsible for D.E.’s independent evaluation met to discuss their findings. On January 11, 2012, DEC released D.E.’s psychological evaluation report to P.S. K255 with Ms. E.’s permission.
228. On February 15, 2012, an IEP meeting was held at which the schoolbased Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) proposed that D.E. attend a 6:1:1 class at a District 75 school with speech language therapy, occupational therapy, and a 1:1 crisis paraprofessional. The program proposed by CSE would not be implemented until April 13, 2012, until which time D.E. would remain in his current, inappropriate program. Ms. E was worried that if kept in that inappropriate program, D.E. would continue to have tantrums and P.S. K225 personnel would continue to summon EMS and police in response.
229. On February 17, 2012, in order to protect D.E. from further needless trauma, Ms. E withdrew her son from P.S. K255 and the public school system. Ms. E moved and re-enrolled D.E. in the public school system in Manhattan in April 2012. She was offered a placement at P226@875 in a 6:1:1 class. Ms. E. viewed the program and found it inappropriate for her son.
230. On or about May 4, 2012 Ms. E. filed an administrative Impartial Hearing request under the IDEA, alleging the NYCDOE denied D.E. his right to a free and appropriate education for the 2011-2012 school year for the inappropriate actions of P.S. 255 and for the failure of the NYCDOE to recommend an appropriate program. Ms. E. sought prospective funding for a private school for children with autism at the DOE’s expense for the remainder of the 2011-2012 school year and the 2012-2013 school year.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 51 of 75
231. On October 16, 2012, the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) issued a decision granting the request that NYCDOE be required to pay for a private school placement for D.E. for the 2012-2013 school year. A.A.
232. A.A. is an eleven-year old boy. He lives with his mother, T.W. in Brooklyn. In September 2013, A.A. entered the 6th grade at P.S. 141. A.A. has or is perceived by NYCDOE to have a disability.
233. A.A. is a special education student with an IEP. He has been described in his IEP’s as having Asperger’s Syndrome, emotional disturbance and ADHD. In June 2013, A.A. graduated from P.S. 4, and then attended their summer program for two months. In September 2013, A.A. entered the 6th grade at P.S. 141 in an 8:1:1 alternate assessment setting.
234. In September or October 2013, A.A. had a tantrum at school. P.S. 141 personnel notified Ms. W. at her workplace. Ms. W asked to speak to A.A. over the phone in order to try to calm A.A. down. After a few minutes on the phone with Ms. W., A.A. was no longer having a tantrum and then returned to his classroom.
235. On November 6, 2013, A.A. had a tantrum in the lunchroom. A.A. had a disagreement with another student and threw his milk carton on the ground. A.A. refused to sit back down next to the student and began eating his potato chips. P.S. 141 personnel took A.A.’s potato chips from his hands and threw them in the garbage. A.A became upset and had a tantrum.
236. School personnel summoned EMS and the police, and then notified Ms. W. at her workplace in Canarsie, Brooklyn. School personnel told her A.A. was being sent to the hospital and Ms. W told school personnel she would come to the school. Ms.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 52 of 75
W. knew that it would take her a substantial amount of time to travel to the school from her workplace, so she suggested that her 31-year old daughter S.W. go to the school to be with A.A. until Ms. W. arrived. S.W. was already listed on A.A.’s blue emergency contact card to be contacted in case of an emergency. The school staff member said this was permissible. Ms. W. immediately notified her daughter S.W. of the situation.
237. In the cab on the way to the school, Ms. W. again called her daughter, who was by then with A.A. at the school. S.W asked the EMS workers to allow her to take A.A. home. Ms. W. could overhear EMS telling S.W. that they were only allowed to release A.A. to his parents or the principal. The school principal was not on the scene. Ms. W. then asked S.W. to let her speak to EMS. EMS told Ms. W. that only if she arrived at the school within 10 minutes, they could release A.A. to her. Ms. W. told E.M.S. that she would be unable to make it to the school within that timeframe from her current location. EMS told Ms. W. that they would bring him to Interfaith Hospital and she would have to sign a form at the hospital for A.A. to be released to her. School personnel sent an aide with A.A. in the ambulance to the hospital.
238. At or about 3:00 p.m., Ms. W. arrived at Interfaith Hospital where she found A.A. sitting near the desk in the emergency room with an EMS worker. A.A. was crying; however, when he saw Ms. W. he immediately stopped crying. A.A. asked his mother if he was in trouble. He was told no and became very relieved. Ms. W. signed a form that she believed EMS had mentioned to her earlier that she could sign in order for A.A. to be released. Ms. W then proceeded to attempt to leave the hospital with A.A. A hospital staff member, however, stopped Ms. W. and threatened to call the

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 53 of 75
Administration for Children’s Services if Ms. W. did not agree to wait to be seen by a doctor at the hospital. Ms. W. complied, fearful of the hospital staff member’s threat.
239. A.A. and Ms. W. waited approximately three hours before they saw a medical doctor. Ms. W. explained to the doctor that A.A. has autism. The doctor examined A.A. and asked him questions about the incident. The doctor did not note any bruises on A.A or other physical injuries. He did not prescribe medication, perform medical tests, x-rays, MRI’s or conduct any other follow-up procedures.
240. A.A. and Ms. W. were then told to wait for a psychiatrist for a consultation. A.A. and Ms. W. waited another two hours before seeing a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist assessed A.A. and asked him to retell the events of the incident. The psychiatrist did not conduct evaluations or offer referrals.
241. A.A. was then allowed to be discharged. He received no medical or psychiatric treatment or medication by the doctors. The ordeal lasted approximately six hours, during which A.A. and Ms. W. were not allowed to leave and were provided food only upon repeated requests by Ms. W. During that time, A.A. was traumatized by the ordeal. He was scared, hungry, tired, anxious, confused, and desperate to leave the hospital. He was also forced to miss half the day of instruction at school.
242. Ms. W. received a bill from the Fire Department of the City of New York in the amount of $714.80 dated December 3, 2013, for the ambulance. Ms. W. also received a bill from Interfaith Medical Center in the amount of $1,096.30 dated December 30, 2013, for the emergency room visit.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 54 of 75
S.D. 243. S.D. is an eight-year-old student with a Social Communication Disorder
(SCD) and characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). He has an IEP and attends a third-grade general education class with related services at P.S 120 in Queens. S.D. began attending P.S 120 in the spring of 2013, when he was in second grade. SD resides with his mother, A.D., in Queens. S.D. has or is perceived by NYCDOE to have a disability.
244. A.D. has made a number of requests for additional supports and services for her son since S.D. began school at P.S 120 in April 2013. Among other requests, A.D. has asked for a more appropriate classroom program, reinstatement of speech services and an appropriate behavior intervention plan (BIP). To date, NYCDOE has not provided S.D. with an appropriate program or appropriate supports and services or a meaningful behavior intervention plan formulated with appropriate input and participation of his parent.
245. On October 31, 2013, A.D. dropped S.D. off at school. Shortly after leaving, she received a telephone call from Jeng Feng, the guidance counselor at P.S 120. A.D. was told that S.D. was very upset because he was not allowed to wear his Halloween mask and refused to take it off. She told A.D. to come to the school right away.
246. A.D. rushed back to school and was brought to the guidance counselor’s office where she found her son locked in with the assistant principal, the guidance counselor and a security guard. The security guard was standing in the doorway and would not allow A.D. to come into the room. A.D. could see and hear S.D. crying and

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 55 of 75
calling for his mother through the glass. The security guard told A.D. through the doorway that EMS had been called by the school and that S.D. would be transported to the emergency room.
247. Only after A.D. demanded that she be allowed in and permitted to console her son, did school officials open the door. Within minutes, S.D. had stopped crying and was completely calm. The school told A.D. that S.D. had refused to take off his Halloween mask, would not listen and had had a tantrum.
248. EMS workers arrived at the school shortly thereafter. Although SD was calm at this point and A.D. was prepared to take him home, school officials insisted that S.D. be removed to the emergency room and evaluated in order to return to school.
249. A.D. accompanied her son and EMS workers to Elmhurst Hospital via ambulance. Once at the hospital, S.D. was seen by a doctor, a nurse and other hospital staff. S.D. was not permitted to leave until all of the various hospital staff had spoken with S.D. and his mother.
250. Hospital staff found S.D. calm and cooperative and released him to his mother with a note authorizing him to return to school. The ordeal lasted approximately five hours from transport to release from the hospital and was exhausting for S.D. and A.D . As a result of this experience, S.D. became reluctant to go to school and expressed that he did not feel loved by the school.
251. A.D. received a statement that the hospital had billed approximately $1060.00 for their services, only a portion of which, $512.00, was covered by Medicaid.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 56 of 75
252. S.D. and his mother continue to fear that the school will contact EMS and will resort to having S.D. inappropriately transported to the hospital in the future when no medical necessity exists. C.R.
243. C.R. is a six year old boy who attends first grade at P.S. 396 in the Bronx. He lives with his mother N.C.R. and his brother in the Bronx. C.R. has or is perceived by NYCDOE to have a disability.
244. C.R. has received special education services since the age of three and currently his IEP recommends that he attend an inclusion class in a community school. The IEP provides a classification of autism for him and recommends that he also receive the related services of occupational therapy and speech and language therapy.
245. The class that C.R. attends at PS 396 is part of a special program called ASD Nest, a program for high functioning students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The program provides an integrated co-teaching class in a community school with two teachers. The ASD Nest program is intended to help children learn how to function well academically, behaviorally and socially in school and in their community. C.R. has been attending the ASD Nest program at P.S. 396 since kindergarten in the 2012-2013 school year.
246. Kindergarten was largely uneventful for C.R. until a few weeks before the end of classes. At that time, an incident occurred where C.R. was kicking, spitting and became upset. School officials thought it might have been because C.R. was concerned about some changes that had occurred in his classroom environment. During the summer of 2013, C.R. attended the summer program for ASD Nest and he had two

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 57 of 75
episodes of tantrums. 247. Prior to the start of the school year in September 2013, administrators
from P.S. 396 called N.C.R. and told her that C.R. would have the same teachers from the prior school year, Stacey Garzione and Ashley Auchmoody. School officials also asked C.R. to come to school to look at the class prior to the start of school to ensure he had a proper adjustment to the new classroom. N.C.R. noticed that C.R. was not happy when he saw the classroom and she felt that C.R. appeared not to want to interact with the teachers.
248. On or about September 12, 2013, officials from P.S. 396 called N.C.R. regarding an incident with C.R. N.C.R. immediately went to school and upon entering the principal’s office she saw Theresa Castillo, the Nest Program Coach, restraining C.R. while the principal, Nicole Tine, was holding his ankles together on a bean bag. C.R. was not crying and appeared to be relaxed and not resisting. N.C.R. started crying but made sure she was not seen by C.R. since he has never seen her cry. Principal Tine spoke to N.C.R., but N.C.R. does not recall what was said because she was extremely upset. N.C.R. eventually took C.R. home. N.C.R. never received any written documentation regarding the incident on September 12, 2013. Afterwards, C.R. explained to N.C.R. that he does not like his teachers and that it is boring in the class.
249. On or about September 25, 2013, N.C.R. received a call from C.R.’s teacher stating that C.R. was out of control and Principal Tine was going to call EMS and then would call her. Principal Tine called N.C.R. and stated that if C.R. did not calm down in ten minutes then they would call EMS. Principal Tine stated there were four security guards with him and that C.R. might have to go to the emergency room because

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 58 of 75
he had threatened to kill her. N.C.R. asked her with what C.R. had threatened to kill her with and the principal did not answer. N.C.R. told Principal Tine that she believed the school ought to be able to deal with C.R. without needing EMS. Principal Tine responded by saying, “I can't sit here all day with him, it is not my job” and the conversation ended. N.C.R. was at an appointment and was unable to go to the school. School officials called later that day and stated that C.R. was placed in a kindergarten class and he did better.
250. On or about September 28, 2013, N.C.R. raised concerns about her son’s behaviors to school officials. Ms. Costello gave N.C.R. three options: get counseling for her son outside of school; have the school conduct a Functional Behavior Assessment (“FBA”); or have C.R. see a psychiatrist. N.C.R. chose the FBA option and made the request to school officials. Ms. Costello stated that she would be conducting the FBA.
251. At or about the end of October 2013, an IEP meeting was held for C.R. At the meeting, N.C.R. suggested using a weighted vest as a way to calm C.R. down but Ms. Auchmoody said it was not necessary. N.C.R. also suggested that C.R. be taken to the gym to calm down when he gets upset. The school officials at the meeting seemed to ignore all of her suggestions.
252. In or about October 2013, N.C.R. received a call from Ms. Tine regarding C.R. Ms. Tine stated that C.R. was screaming and would not calm down. She requested that N.C.R. come to the school to pick him up . When N.C.R. arrived at the school, she saw Ms. Tine restraining C.R. by straddling him on top of a bean bag. Ms. Tine told N.C.R. that C.R. had been kicking and screaming for the last forty-five minutes. N.C.R. could see that C.R. had been crying. N.C.R. then proceeded to take her son home.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 59 of 75
253. In or about November 2013, N.C.R. learned that the school had not given C.R. a permission slip for a class trip. N.C.R. learned about the trip only when she went to school to check in on her son and noticed the entire class was ready to go on the trip and C.R. was not dressed to leave with the class. The teacher stated that he had been defiant and would not be able to attend the class trip. In fact, the school has since maintained a policy that, rather than providing a reasonable accommodation, it will not permit C.R. to go on any trips unless N.C.R. is available to accompany him. On three to four occasions, N.C.R. has been unable to accompany C.R. and he was not allowed to attend the planned trips.
254. On November 15, 2013, C.R. was involved with an incident in his class during which he became agitated because he wanted to leave the room and his teachers would not let him do so. Ms. Garzione videotaped C.R. with her iPhone as he was trying to leave the room. Ms. Garzione provided a copy of the videotape to N.C.R. N.C.R. had not provided permission to school officials to videotape her son. However, N.C.R. signed a release granting permission for the school to videotape C.R. for educational purposes on November 18, 2013.
255. On November 25, 2013, at around 9:15 a.m., N.C.R. received a call from C.R.’s teacher, Ms. Auchmoody, who told her to come and pick up C.R. from the school. N.C.R. told Ms. Auchmoody that it would take her more than an hour to arrive at the school given her location and in addition, she had a 10:00 a.m. appointment. Ms. Auchmoody proceeded to state that Principal Tine would call EMS if C.R. was not calm within the next 10 minutes. N.C.R. believes C.R. was upset because the school officials did not want to take C.R. on a field trip to the Museum of Natural History on that

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 60 of 75
day. Ms. Auchmoody sent N.C.R. an email earlier that morning stating that C.R. was welcome to go on the trip only if N.C.R. accompanied him. If not, C.R. was going to be placed in a kindergarten classroom.
256. In or about November 2013, based on the advice of school officials, N.C.R. took C.R. to the North Central Bronx Hospital emergency room to be seen by the Crisis Intervention Program. The doctor at NCBH told N.C.R. that C.R. was fine, but that the school should add a behavioral plan to his IEP. N.C.R. relayed this information to school officials but instead of acting on this information, Ms. Costello gave N.C.R. a flyer and suggested that she take her son to see a psychiatrist at an agency called YAI.
257. On or about December 12, 2013, Ms. Hollinger called N.C.R. and stated that C.R. was in her office and that he was crying and carrying on badly. She requested that N.C.R. come to the school. N.C.R. told her she was on her way but that she was far away from the school. Ms. Costello called soon after and said they had called an ambulance and C.R. might be at the hospital by the time she arrived. N.C.R. asked why they had called for an ambulance. Ms. Costello said C.R. was hitting and kicking and spitting at staff members. During the phone conversation with Ms. Costello, N.C.R. arrived at school and observed Ms. Fishman videotaping C.R. in Ms. Hollinger’s office through the glass windows of the door. N.C.R. asked why they were videotaping C.R. Ms. Fishman stated she was videotaping because she wanted show how C.R. was behaving. When N.C.R. looked into the room, she saw C.R. swing his arm after Ms. Hollinger in an effort to make her leave him alone. C.R. appeared not to be angry or extremely upset. N.C.R. then asked what happened and was told that C.R. had become upset at Ms. Fishman when she came to take him to his occupational therapy

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 61 of 75
session. C.R. told N.C.R. that Ms. Fishman came to get him but he did not feel like going, and Ms. Fishman said in a loud voice, “It’s not a choice!” C.R. said he turned his back to her and she touched him. He said he told her do not touch him, but she touched him again a second time. After the third time, C.R. he repeated to her “do not touch me” and then he turned around and scratched at Ms. Fishman. N.C.R. asked Ms. Fishman why she would force him to go with her if he told her he did not want to and she responded that occupational therapy is mandatory.
258. As N.C.R. began to leave with C.R., Assistant Principal Rebecca Odessey stopped N.C.R. and said Principal Tine had said that N.C.R. and C.R. could not leave. N.C.R. would have to wait for the ambulance to arrive and to tell them she did not want C.R. to be taken to the hospital. N.C.R. asked Ms. Odessey if she was required by law to stay and wait for the ambulance. Ms. Odessey proceeded to speak with Principal Tine and later told N.C.R. she could leave if she wanted to.
259. On December 18, 2013, N.C.R. received a call from school officials stating that C.R. was involved in an incident. N.C.R. proceeded to the school and learned that the school had called for an ambulance. Upon her arrival, N.C.R. observed that C.R. was calm and that he was playing on an iPad in the guidance office. Two police officers arrived in response to the call for the ambulance. Subsequently, an ambulance arrived as well. N.C.R. refused treatment from the EMT’s. N.C.R. asked school officials for an explanation about the incident and school officials did not provide one.
260. Subsequently, in or about February 2014, N.C.R. received a school document stating that on December 18, 2013, C.R. had refused to wash his hands when

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 62 of 75
asked and had started to hit, spit, kick and pinch the teacher. The document also states that he head-butted the teacher and was shaking and screaming. When other staff members responded, C.R. allegedly engaged in the same behaviors with each staff member.
261. On or about January 9, 2014, N.C.R. received a call from officials at P.S. 396 stating that C.R. had kicked a teacher and that they were calling an ambulance. N.C.R. was at the school when the EMTs arrived. The EMTs encouraged N.C.R. to allow them to take C.R. to the hospital. N.C.R. refused the services and had to take C.R. home because school officials would not allow C.R. back into the classroom. Later that day, N.C.R. received a call from Roxanne Batista, Administrator for Special Education for the Children’s First Network 109, the network within NYCDOE that provides support for P.S. 396, advising her that C.R. would have to be picked up each day at 12:00 noon because of his behaviors.
262. N.C.R. subsequently obtained a school document in or about February 2014 stating that on January 9, 2014, C.R. was being aggressive towards three teachers (Meg Heubel, Stacey Pagan, Ashley Auchmoody) and the principal. The document states that C.R. kicked, punched, pulled their hair, spit at them, and yelled, “die.”
263. On January 13, 2014, N.C.R. received a call from Ms. Hollinger who stated that C.R. needed to be picked up at noon. In response to N.C.R.’s objections, Ms. Hollinger stated that the truncated school schedule was mandated for the remainder of the school year.
264. N.C.R. did not pick up her son at noon. Principal Tine called N.C.R. at around 12:45 p.m. and stated that C.R. had been “tantruming” for thirty minutes and that

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 63 of 75
she might have to call for an ambulance again. N.C.R. responded that she did not have the cab fare to get to the school quickly so it would take at least thirty minutes. Principal Tine responded that she would only wait twenty minutes for N.C.R. to arrive before she calls for the ambulance. Principal Tine stated further that the school is not equipped to deal with C.R.’s behavior.
265. Between October 2013 to January 2013, N.C.R. contacted school officials to get updates on the progress of the FBA. Anna Martinez Hollinger, the school guidance counselor, told N.C.R. that “these things take time.”
266. On February 13, 2014, an IEP meeting was held at P.S. 396 to determine the appropriate education program and services for C.R. The team agreed to defer C.R.’s case to the Central Based Support Team for non-public school placement. At the meeting, N.C.R. learned that the FBA and BIP had been completed in December although she was never involved in its development.
267. Between October 2013 and January 2014, N.C.R. was threatened on or about fifteen separate occasions by school officials that they would send C.R. to the hospital emergency room if she did not go to the school and take C.R. home. N.C.R. believes the school has been provoking C.R. The situation has severely affected her studies and her sleep. She finds herself exhausted and nervous every day. She fears that every time her phone rings it is the school calling her to pick up C.R. Q.A.
268. Q.A. is twelve years old and is in the sixth grade. He previously attended the Young Scholars Academy. He lives with his mother, I.S., in the Bronx. Q.A. has or is perceived by NYCDOE to have a disability.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 64 of 75
269. On October 17, 2013, Q.A. was in the gym at the Young Scholars Academy with a friend. The gym teacher told him not to do a back flip. Q.A. did not follow the teacher’s instructions. The teacher asked him to leave the gym and go to the Safe Schools against Violence in Education (“SAVE”) room, which in most schools is a room the school uses for students who have misbehaved and for in-school suspensions. Q.A expressed his belief that he had not done anything wrong, and refused to go.
270. The school contacted his aunt on the phone and told her that Q.A. did not want to go to the SAVE room. While she was on the phone with Q.A.’s aunt, the principal put her arm out to block Q.A. and he bumped into her. Q.A.'s aunt spoke with him and told him that he needed to apologize. Q.A. did apologize. The principal told his aunt on the phone that they were sending Q.A. to the hospital, that he had to leave the school, and that they could not wait for his mother to arrive. The school called EMS, and Q.A. was taken by ambulance to North Central Bronx Hospital, accompanied by the school guidance counselor. Q.A. expressed the desire to speak with his mother, but was told he could not speak with her until he arrived at the hospital. I.S. arrived at the hospital subsequently.
271. Q.A. was seen by hospital staff. The admitting notes indicate that he was hostile and aggressive towards school staff. Q.A. was discharged the same day with instructions that he return to school. R.T.
272. R.T. is a five-year-old boy enrolled in Kindergarten at P.S 86 in Queens. He resides with his mother, R.M.T., in New York City. R.T. has or is perceived by NYCDOE to have a disability.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 65 of 75
273. During the 2012-2013 school year, RT attended prekindergarten at Heartshare in Queens, New York.
274. R.T. began attending school at P.S 86 in September 2013. At the time of his enrollment, R.T. had an IEP classifying him as having a speech or language impairment and placing him in a 12:1:1 program.
275. R.T. ’s IEP noted that he displays challenges with sensory integration that impacts his need for movement and challenges his ability to focus and attend for longer periods of time. The IEP also notes that he has severe language delays, challenges with, among other things, visual motor activities, fine motor skills, transitioning, frustration tolerance and emotional control and transitioning. He benefits from among other things positive reinforcement and multisensory learning, frequent breaks and an opportunity to get used to new situations.
276. Shortly after beginning school at P.S 86, R.M.T. began receiving frequent calls or verbal reports of R.T.’s behavioral issues at school. On numerous occasions, R.M.T. was called and asked to bring R.T. home during the school day.
277. According to school officials R.T. engaged in a variety of behaviors such as not following instructions, climbing under desks, running around the classroom, knocking into things, throwing items and hitting.
278. R.M.T. reached out to and met with school officials a number of times to attempt to address R.T.’s behavioral and learning needs and to make suggestions about how to help him. She also requested a functional behavior assessment, a behavior intervention plan, and additional supports for her child.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 66 of 75
279. On October 17, 2013 RMT was at P.S 86 meeting with Marilyn Maldonado, the school’s social worker for a social history. She attended the meeting with Michelle McCusker, a teacher who had worked with R.T. at his previous school, Heartshare. The school principal disrupted the meeting by announcing that “[R.T.] is at it again.”
280. R.M.T. followed staff members downstairs and saw that R.T. was reluctant to go to speech therapy. While staff members gathered around him and attempted to tie his shoes, he kicked off his shoe. Ms. Thurston and R.T.’s former teacher were able to easily redirect R.T. and explain that the new speech lady was just like the speech lady at his old school. R.T. complied with the request that he go to speech therapy after his mother and former teacher spoke with him clearly and calmly.
281. Later that day, R.M.T. received a telephone call from the school informing her that the school had called EMS to take R.T. to the emergency room because he was misbehaving and that she should meet him there.
282. Although the child was reportedly “calm and cooperative” when EMS arrived, he was nonetheless removed to the hospital at the urging of the school.
283. R.T. was seen by doctors and other hospital staff who spoke to him and contacted the school. The school purportedly told hospital staff that R.T. had engaged in behavior that included running around, not listening to redirection, head butting, putting magnets in his mouth and picking up scissors in the guidance counselor’s office “in a threatening way.”

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 67 of 75
284. Hospital staff reported that the R.T.’s behavior was cooperative, found no suicidal or homicidal ideation and released R.T. to R.M.T. The hospital visit lasted approximately four hours and confusing and stressful for both R.T. and R.M.T.
285. On November 15, 2013, R.T. was attending P. S 117, an alternative education site where he was serving a suspension for purportedly stomping on a teacher’s foot. Staff there contacted R.M.T. and told her they had called EMS and were sending R.T. to the hospital because he was crying and having a tantrum. R.M.T. begged the school not to send her R.T. to the emergency room, but school staff refused to wait for R.T. to get to the school and said they had to send him to the hospital. R.T. was transported to the emergency room by EMS and a school aid for allegedly acting out and jumping on chairs, but he was calm when he arrived.
286. R.M.T. proceeded to the hospital. When she arrived, R.T. was calm. While at the hospital, R.T. was seen by various hospital staff.
287. The attending doctor noted that R.T. was calm and cooperative in the emergency room and was not depressed, manic or psychotic. He was not found to be suicidal or homicidal and was released to R.M.T. after spending approximately three and a half hours in the emergency room. R.T. and R.M.T. were tired and hungry and upset by this experience.
288. After this second removal of R.T. to the emergency room, R.M.T. expressed her concern to school officials about the school’s practice of calling EMS to remove R.T. and instructed P.S 86 not to call 911 to have the child removed from the school again without her consent.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 68 of 75
289. On November 25, 2013, R.T.’s first day back at his home school, he was again transported to the emergency room at the request of school officials at P.S 86 due to purported disruptive behavior without his parent’s consent.
290. While at the hospital on November 25, R.T. again underwent evaluation by various doctors and hospital staff who spoke to him and also contacted the school.
291. According to hospital records, the school purportedly told the hospital that R.T. had put batteries in his mouth. The doctor noted that R.T. “impulsively puts things in his mouth at baseline and expressed no plan or intent to harm himself.” According to hospital records, R.T. did not display signs of suicidality, homicidal thoughts or aggressive behavior in the hospital and was hyperactive but cooperative and under control in the emergency room.
292. As a result of the removals of R.T. against her will, R.M.T. became increasingly concerned about leaving R.T. with staff at the school and fears that Defendants will continue to inappropriately remove R.T. to the E.R . The removals have also been stressful and upsetting for R.M.T. and for R.T., who feels ostracized from his school community and disliked by his teachers and other school staff and administrators.
293. R.M.T. has received bills from FDNY for the trips to the emergency room which she cannot pay.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: UNREASONABLE SEIZURE (On behalf of Plaintiffs J.H., J.R., N.R., J.M., D.E., A.A., S.D., Q.A., and R.T. against all defendants)
294. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 69 of 75
295. By physically removing plaintiff from their schools to hospital emergency rooms when there was no medical necessity to take such actions, defendants violated plaintiffs’ rights against unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution.
296. A claim for violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution is made actionable by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (On behalf of Plaintiffs T.H., J.H., K.J., J.R., C.J., J.M., Y.P, N.R., M.E., D.E.,
T.W., A.A., A.D., S.D., I.S., Q.A., R.M.T., and R. T. against all defendants) 297. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 298. By removing plaintiff children from school to emergency rooms against their parents’ instructions or without their parents’ consent where there was no urgent medical necessity, defendants violated plaintiff parents right to authorize and direct the medical care given to their children. By forcibly removing plaintiff children from the school to emergency rooms against or without their parents’ consent where there was no urgent medical necessity, defendants violated the liberty interest of plaintiff parents and children to association and family integrity. 299. By preventing plaintiff parents and children from communicating prior to the removal of plaintiff children from the school where the plaintiff parents request the opportunity to speak with their plaintiff children, defendants violated the liberty interest of plaintiff parents to associate and maintain family integrity. 300. A claim for violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution is made actionable by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 70 of 75
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: IDEA (On behalf of all of the plaintiff children against Defendants Fariña , New York
City Department of Education, and the City of New York) 301. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 302. By failing to evaluate the psychological, behavioral, and educational needs of the plaintiffs and opting instead to transport them or threaten to transport them by EMS away from their schools, defendants have violated plaintiffs’ rights under the IDEA. 303. By removing or threatening to remove plaintiffs from the regular educational environment using EMS to address behavior concerns rather than using supplementary aids and services, defendants have violated plaintiffs’ rights under the IDEA to be educated in the least restrictive environment. 304. By failing to address plaintiffs’ behavioral issues with a behavioral intervention plan, defendants have violated plaintiffs’ rights under the IDEA. 305. By requiring a clearance letter before allowing these plaintiffs to return to the regular classroom setting, defendants have deprived plaintiffs of their rights under the IDEA to a free and appropriate public education by establishing an illegal precondition to the receipt of their educational services.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: IDEA (On behalf of all of the plaintiff parents against Defendants Fariña , New York
City Department of Education, and the City of New York) 306. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 307. By transporting students to emergency rooms by EMS for evaluations or threatening to do so instead of following the IDEA evaluation process, defendants have

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 71 of 75
deprived the parent plaintiffs of their rights under IDEA to consent or withhold consent to evaluations of their children.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: REHABILITATION ACT (On behalf of all plaintiff children against all defendants)
308. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 309. By removing plaintiffs from their schools by EMS or threatening to do so when defendants had no reasonable basis for believing that plaintiffs were in need of emergency medical care, defendants have excluded plaintiffs from participation in a federally funded program by reason of their disabilities or perceived disabilities in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. 310. By removing plaintiffs from their regular school setting and placing them with EMS and in hospitals rather than providing appropriate support and services in the school, defendants violated plaintiffs’ right to a public education in the least restrictive setting under the Rehabilitation Act. 311. By requiring a clearance letter before allowing these plaintiffs to return to the regular classroom setting, defendants created an additional barrier for these plaintiffs based solely on disability or perceived disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: ADA (On behalf of all plaintiff children against all defendants) 312. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 313. By removing plaintiffs from their schools by EMS or threatening to do so when Defendants had no reasonable basis for believing that plaintiffs were in need of emergency medical care, defendants have discriminated against plaintiffs by reason of their disabilities or perceived disabilities.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 72 of 75
314. By removing plaintiffs from the educational setting using EMS or threatening to do so, rather than providing appropriate support and services in the school, defendants failed to administer educational services in the least restrictive setting appropriate to plaintiffs’ needs in violation of the ADA.
315. By requiring plaintiffs to secure a clearance letter prior to allowing a return to the classroom, defendants impose a safety requirement based on mere speculation, stereotype and generalizations about individuals with disabilities or perceived disabilities, in violation of the ADA. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
(On behalf of all plaintiff children against all defendants) 316. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 317. By removing plaintiffs from their schools by EMS or threatening to do so when there was no reasonable basis for believing that plaintiffs were in need of emergency medical care, defendants deprived plaintiffs of access to and the advantages of a public accommodation due to their disabilities or perceived disabilities in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-107(4)(a). 318. By requiring a clearance letter prior to allowing plaintiffs to return to the classroom, defendants deprived plaintiffs of their right to an education due to their disabilities or perceived disabilities in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-107(4)(a).
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter a final judgment:

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 73 of 75
1. Declaring that defendants’ practice of removing students from their schools by EMS when there is no reasonable basis for believing that they are need of emergency medical services violates the United States Constitution, the IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, the New York City Human Rights Law, the Chancellor’s Regulations, and FDNY Regulations;
2. Declaring that defendants’ practice of prohibiting students from returning to school without a clearance letter from a doctor violates the IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and the New York City Human Rights Law;
3. Permanently enjoining Defendants City of New York, NYCDOE, and Fariña to provide school personnel with the training and resources they need to address disruptive student behavior without removing students from school by EMS when there is no reasonable basis for believing that they are in need of emergency medical services;
4. Permanently enjoining Defendants City of New York, NYCDOE, and Fariña from removing students from their schools by EMS when there is no reasonable basis for believing that they are need of emergency medical services;
5. Permanently enjoining Defendants City of New York, NYCDOE, and Fariña to comply with the evaluation requirements of IDEA, including the Child Find requirement, for all students who display behavioral difficulties that interfere with their educations;
6. Permanently enjoining Defendants City of New York, NYCDOE, and Fariña from requiring families to provide letters from medical providers prior to permitting students who have or are perceived to have a mental illness or a behavioral disability to return to school without due process of law;

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 74 of 75
7. Permanently enjoining Defendants City of New York and Cassano from using or permitting EMS to remove children from New York City public schools over the objection of their parents or other guardians except when a child has a lifethreatening condition or injury and it is apparent that even a minor delay will jeopardize the life or health of the minor;
8. Awarding the plaintiffs damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 9. Awarding the plaintiffs interest, costs and attorney’s fees incurred in the pursuit of this action; and 10. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: Bronx, New York March 17, 2014
Respectfully submitted, s/Christopher D. Lamb _____________________ Nelson Mar Tara Foster Nancy Bedard Maura McHugh Mills Christopher D. Lamb Ann P. Biddle Nanette Schorr Tanya Douglas Legal Services NYC 349 E.149th Street Bronx, New York 10451 (718) 928-3756

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 19 Filed 03/18/14 Page 75 of 75
Attorneys for Plaintiffs T.H., J.H., K.J., J.R., C.J., J.M., Y.P., N.R., M.E., and D.E.
Mariann Wang Cuti Hecker Wang LLP 305 Broadway, Suite 607 New York, New York 10007 (212) 620-2063 Attorneys for Plaintiff W.P.

 
 Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 23 CoH, ~· fi'\a~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
T.H., individually and as next friend to minor child J.H., K.P., as next friend to minor child W.P.,
K.J., individually and as next friend to minor child .T.R.,
C.J., individually and as next friend to minor child J.M.. Y.P., individually and as next friend to minor child N.R., M.E., individually and as next friend to minor child D.E., T.W., individually and as next friend to minor child A.A., A.D., individual1y and as next friend to minor child S.D., N.C.R., individually and as next friend to minor child C.R., I.S., individually and as next friend to minor child Q.A., R.M.T., individually and as next friend to minor child R.T.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED

f DOC#:

· ·

DATE FILED: /& 15//t/

13 Civ. 8777 (JMF)(JLC)

CARMEN FARINA, as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education; the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; the CITY OF NEW YORK; DANIEL A. NIGRO, as Commissioner of the Fire Department of New York; and JOHN/JANE DOE #'s 1-24 in their individual capacities,
--------------D-ef-en-d-an-ts-. -------·

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs T.H., J.H., K.P., W.P., KJ., J.R., CJ., J.M., Y.P., N.R., M.E., D.E., T. W., A.A., A.D., S.D., N.C.R., C.R., l.S._ Q.A., R.M.T., and R.T. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed an Amended Complaint (the '';\mended Complaint") on March 18, 2014 alleging that Defendants Carmen Farii'ia, as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education ("Chancellor Farina"), the New York City Department of Education ("DOE"), the City of New York (the ''City"), Salvatore J. Cassano, as Commissioner of the Fire Department of New York ("Commissioner Cassano"). and John/Jane Does Nos. 1-24 (collectively. "Defendants'') violated the federal and New York constitutions. federal statutes. and the New

j - usoe soN't' .
OATE SCANNED

JJ,

I u
/J /([.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 2 of 23
York City Human Rights Law by improperly calling 911, taking Plaintiffs to emergency rooms, discriminating against them on the basis of their disabilities and/or perceived disabilities, and interfering with their educational opportunities;
WHEREAS, pursum1t to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Daniel A. Nigro, Commissioner of the Fire Department of the City of New York ("FDNY") is substituted for Salvatore J. Cassano;
WHEREAS, Defendants deny that they have taken any action that violates the foderal or state constitutions or federal, state, or local laws;
WHEREAS, Defendants deny any liability whatsoever to Plaintiffs and assert that they have meritorious defenses;
• WHEREAS, nothing in this Stipulation and Order of Settlement shall be deemed to be a
finding or an admission that t)'Cfendants have in any way violated Plaintiffs' rights as contained in the constitutions, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations of the United States, the State of New York or the City of New York;
WHEREAS, the paities wish to voluntarily resolve the claims raised in the Amended Complaint, according to the terms set forth in this Stipulation and Order of Settlement, in order to avoid the costs and uncertainty of litigation; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereby waive trial or evidentiary hearing, as well as the entry of (jndings of fact and conclusions of law, and have agreed to the entry of this Stipulation and Order or Settlement, as indicated by the signatures appearing below:
NOW, THEREFORE, rT IS HEREBY AGREED by and among the parties as fr.1llows:

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 3 of 23

I. DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Exhibit A to this Stipulation

and Order of Settlement, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

1.

"Agency Site" is a site of a District 75 ("D75.') school: (a) that is not located in a

DOE school building; (b) where students receive therapeutic, clinical, or other non-instructional

services that are provided by non-DOE employees; and (c) where DOE provides instructional

services only. "Agency School" means a D75 school comprised exclusively of Agency Sites.

2. "Building Response Team (BRT)" is a team selected by the principal, or the

principals if more than one school is located in a building or on a campus, to serve as the

building's core emergency response group to help coordinate and activate building/campus-

wide procedures in a school-related emergency until first responders arrive.

3. "Crisis Intervention Team" ts a school cns1s response/prevention/

education/intervention multidisciplinary team which 1s established m each school in

accordance with Chancellor's Regulation A-755.

4. "Crisis De-escalation Plan" is a component of each school's crisis intervention

plan which contains the information noted in Paragraph JI.C.3.

5.

"Designated Schools" means New Explorations Into Science, Technology and

Math (01M539); P.S. 149 Sojourner Truth (03MJ49); The Young Scholars' Academy of the

Bronx (I IX289); and P.S. 141 K (75Kl41) (collectively, "Plaintiffs' Schools"), and 20 Selected

Schools. "Selected Schools" means the 20 schools with: (a) the highest rates of transports of

students to a hospital emergency room for an emotional/psychological condition in the prior
school year, as determined by <lividing the number or such trunsports from a school by that

school's student enrollment: and (b) a minimum of five such transports of students in the prior

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 4 of 23

school year. In the event there are fewer than 20 schools with a minimum of five such transports

in the prior year, the remaining Selected Schools will be determined by rate alone. In no event

will the number of Selected Schools in any year be fewer than 20. The Selected Schools will not

include P.S. 023 Q (75Q023) or borne and hospital instruction programs. For purposes of

calculating rate of transport, student enrollment shall be based upon the enrollment numbers for

each school as annually reported in DOE's Audited Register.

6.

"Designated Site" means a site of a Designated School that is located in a DOE

school building but excludes any D75 school site that exclusively serves students in inclusion,

day-treatment, or work-study programs. A Designated School with a single site will also be

considered a Designated Site. In the event DOE believes additional schools or sites not in

existence at the time this Stipulation and Order of Settlement is entered, or in existence at the

time this Stipulation and Order of Settlement is entered but subsequently materially reorganized

or reconfigured, should be excluded from the list of Designated Schools or Designated Sites,

DOE shall so advise Plaintiffs by July 31 of each year. Defendants shall initiate a meet and
confor process with Plaintiffs to discuss the exclusion of such sites and schools. IL after the

parties have met and conferred, they bave not reached an agreement about such matter,

Defendants may move to modify this Stipulation and Order of Settlement solely for the purpose

of seeking an order from the Court permitting such proposed sites or schools to be excluded from

the list.

7.

'·DOE" is the New York City Department of Education. "School" means a

school operated by DOE.

8.

"EMS" is the Emergency Medical Service Bureau of the Fire Departm.ent of the

City of New York.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 5 of 23
9. ''FDNY'' is the Fire Depattment of the City of New York. 10. "Online Occmrcnce Reporting System (OORS)" is DOE's electronic system of record for documenting and maintaining information about school-related incidents. 11. "Occurrence Report" is the report about school-related incidents prepared 111 OORS by the principal/dcsigncc. 12. "Plaintiffs' Counsel" means Legal Services NYC and Cuti Hecker Wang LLP. 13. "School Year" is the period from July 1 to the following June 30. 14. "Special Needs Coordinator" is the staff person who is the primary contact on the Building Response Team for issues involving special needs students which may arise during a school-related emergency. 15. "Stipulation Period" is the period from the entry of this Stipulation and Order of Settlement through June JO, 2018. 16. ''TCIS Training'' means the Therapeutic Crisis Intervention for Schools Training developed by Cornell University. 17. "TCJS Refresher Training" means the Therapeutic Crisis Intervention for Schools Refresher Training developed by Cornell University. II. AGREEMENT REGARDING POLICIES, TRAINING, AND REPORTING A. CHANCELLOR'S REGULATION I. DOE shall include the language of the attached Exhibit A in a proposed Chancellor's Regulation with an effective date of August l, 2015, that if enacted, will be binding on DOh. DOE shall post the proposed Chancellor's Regulation for adoption at a meeting of lhe Panel for Education Policy scheduled to be held prior to June 1, 2015.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 6 of 23
2. DOE shall communicate interim guidance on the policies and procedures set forth m Section I of Exhibit A to all principals by January 3 J, 2015. Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with a copy of the interim guidance two weeks prior to communicating the interim guidance to all principals.
3. Within seven days of the vote by the Panel for Educational Policy on the proposed Chancellor's Regulation incorporating the language in Exhibit A, Defendants will notify Plaintiffs that a vote was held and provide Plaintiffs with the text of the adopted regulation. If the relevant language of the Chancellor's Regulation as adopted is different than Exhibit A, then Plaintiffs shall have seven days from the notification to request a meeting with Defendants to discuss this development. lf the parties cannot agree upon an appropriate course of action in light of this development, then Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the meeting of the parties to make an application to the Court for appropriate relief in light of the development.
B. FDNY POLICIES 1. When EMS responds to a school's request for an ambulance in connection with a
student experiencing an emotional, behavioral or psychiatric event, EMS will Jollow its regular policies and procedures for patient assessment, treatment and transport. If the student's parent seeks to refuse medical assistance or transport for the student. EMS will make a determination as to whether such request will be honored consistent with its policies an<l procedures governing refusal of medical ai<l (EM SC OGP 106-04), treatment and transport of a minor (EMSC OGP 106-05) and assignments involving an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) (EMSC OGP 10608).
2. When EMS is called to a school for a student experiencing an emotional, behavioral or psychiatric event. if school staff has been unable to contact the student's parent, the
6

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 7 of 23
on-scene 911 responders will conduct an assessment of the student and obtain relevant information from school staff and others when appropriate and then determine, in consultation with FDNY medical oversight if necessary, whether the student requires emergency medical treatment and/or transport.
3. Within 90 days of the date of entry of this Stipulation and Order of Settlement, Defendants will provide Plaintiffs with written confirmation that fDNY has communicated with its EMS personnel to reinforce the policies governing refusal of medical aid (EMSC OGP l 0604), treatment and transport of a minor (EMSC OGP 106-05) and assignments involving an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) (EMSC OGP 106-08) with respect to the EMS responses set forth in Paragraphs JI. B.1-2.
C. CRlSIS INTERVENTION TEAMS AND DE-ESCALATION PLANS l. Each school shall have a Crisis Intervention Team. 2. As of the effective date of a Chancellor's Regulation which incorporates the
policies in Exhibit A, the responsibilities of the Crisis Intervention Team shall include assisting in de-escalating incidents involving student behavior that may pose a substantial risk of serious injury to the student or others.
3. By October 31 of each year, each Crisis intervention Team shall develop a Crisis De-escalation Plan for its school. The Crisis De-escalation Plan shall include:
a. Strategics for de-escalating behavioral crisis situations; b. Identitication of locations in the school building in which students in crisis
may be safely isolated from others; c. Identification of school staff trained in de-escalation techniques;
7

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 8 of 23

cl Identification of in-school and community resources that arc available to the

school and parents (e.g., mental health c.:Jinics, mobile crisis teams, facilities that

provide urgent/same-day mental health assessments);

e. Description of how crisis de-escalation and response protocols arc

communicated to school staff.

4. By October 1 of each year, DOE shall make available to all schools best practices

guidelines for: (a) the development of Crisis De-escalation Plans; and (b) the presentation of the

Crisis De-escalation Plans to school staff at the orientation sessions described in Paragraph

11.D. l l. The best practices guidelines for conducting orientations shall include all of the

requirements set forth in Paragraph 11.D.11.d.i-iv. Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with a

copy of the best practices guidelines by September 29 of each year.

5. By the first day in September 2015 in which schools are open for instruction,

DOE shall have staff designated to: (a) review each school's Crisis De-escalation Plan to ensure

that it contains the information described in Paragraph Il.C.3.; and (b) provide suppm1s to

schools in the development of such plans.

6.

By February L 2016, and by each subsequent February I, the designated staff

shall review each school's Crisis De-escalation Plan to ensure that it contains the information

described in Paragraph II.C.3.

7.

By February L 2016. and by each subsequent l·\~bruary 1. each school must

ccrtiCy that it has conducted the orientation session required in Exhibit i\ in accordance with the

best practices guidelines described in Paragraph Jl.C.4.

8.

On or alter March l, 2016 and on or after each subsequent March l, Plaintiffs

may proviJc DcfonJants with a \\Tittcn request that DOE provide up to 75 school Crisis De-

8

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 9 of 23

escalation Plans of schools identified by Plaintiffs. Defendants shall provide the requested plans

to Plaintiffs within 21 days of receiving Plaintiffs' written request.

9. By March ] , 2016 and by each subsequent March 1, Defendants will provide

Plaintiffs with written confirmation that DOE is in compliance with Paragraphs Il.C. l., ll.C.3.,

II.C.4., II.C.5., ILC.6., and II.C.7.

D. TRAINING, ORIENTATION, AND COMMUNICATION OF DOE POLICY

1. DOE will provide TCIS Training to 500 employees assigned to Designated Sites

at Designated Schools per school year in school years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018.

This Training will be in addition to the voluntary TCIS Training currently provided to DOE

employees throughout the school system. DOE will make good-faith efforts to make available to

DOE employees during the Stipulation Period voluntary TCIS Training beyond that which is

mandated by this Stipulation. The intention of these efforts will be to substantially increase the

total number of DOE employees trained in TCIS during the Stipulation Period compared to the

total number of DOE employees trained in TClS in the three years prior to July 1, 2015. If DOE

provides TCIS Training to DOE employees during the period between July l and the first day in

September in which schools are open for instruction, such Training will count towards the 500

employees DOE is required to train if the DOE employees who receive that Training arc

assigned to one of that school year's Designated Sites.

2.

By February l, 2016, and by each subsequent February 1, at every building at

which a Designated Site is located, DOE will meet the following minimum training

requirements. At Designated Sites with student enrollment of 25 or less, there will be at least

two employees with TCIS Training, and one must be an employee assigned to the Designated

Site of the Designated SchooL and the second must either be an employee assigned to the

9

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 10 of 23

Designated Site of the Designated School or the Special Needs Coordinator on the Building

Response Team of the building in which the Designated Site is located. At Designated Sites

with student enrollment of greater than 25, there will be at least three employees with TCIS

Training, and two must be employees assigned to the Designated Site of the Designated School,

and the third must either be an employee assigned to the Designated Site of the Designated

School or the Special Needs Coordinator on the Building Response Team of the building in

which the Designated Site is located. In the event that the number of trained employees at a

Designated Site falls below the minimum requirements, DOE will meet these requirements as

soon as reasonably practicable.

3. No sooner than April 1, 2017, Plaintiffs may initiate a meet and confor process

with Defendants, who agree to meet with Plaintiffs in such event to discuss whether the

mrmmum number of TCIS-Trained employees at one or more Designated Sites should be

increased. I( after the parties have met and conferred, they have not reached an agreement about

increasing the minimum number of TCJS-Trained employees at Designated Sites, Plaintiffs may

move to modify this Stipulation and Order of Settlement solely for the purpose of seeking an

order from the Court mandating an increased minimum number of TC IS-Trained employees at

one or more Designated Sites.

4.

Provision of TCIS Training for additional employees assigned to the Designated

Sites beyond the minimum requirements set forth above (up to the 500 employees that DOE is

required to train per year as set forth in Paragraph 11.D.1.) will be determined by DOE in its

discretion. In making this determination, DOE shall consider the number of DOE staff at these

Designated Sites who have already received TCIS Training. the number of students enrolled at

that Designated Site and any other relevant factors. In providing the training mandated in

I 0

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 11 of 23

Paragraph 11.D. I .. DOE shall prioritize meeting the required mm1mum levels of trained

employees as set forth in Paragraph II. D.2. as soon as possible. J\s mandated by Paragraph

!I. 0.2., those minimum levels shall be achieved by no later than February I. 2016, and by each

subsequent February l.

5.

Selected Schools will be determined for each school year as set forth in Paragraph

1.5. Insofar as a school that was a Selected School in a prior year remains a Selected School, the

minimum requirements of trained employees outlined in Paragraph fl.D.2. will remain applicable

to that school's Designated Sites. Tf a school that was a Selected School in a prior year is no

longer a Selected School, then these minimum requirements of trained employees will no longer

be applicable at that school's Designated Sites. If a school that was not a Selected School in a

prior year becomes a Selected School, then these minimum requirements of trained employees

will become applicable to that school's Designated Sites.

6.

By August 15 of each year, Defendants will provide Plaintiffs a list of the

Designated Schools and Designated Sites for the coming year and will provide Plaintiffs with the

data used for determining the list.

7.

For purposes of meeting the minimum requirements set forth in Paragraph II.D.2.,

an individual employee must have either: (a) received TC!S Training in the last two years: or (b)

received TCIS Trnining more than two years earlier and received TClS Refresher Training in the

last two years.

8.

Effective .July 1, 20 I5, DO~:-s TCIS Training \Vil! include the policies and

procedures set forth in in Exhibit J\ and an instruction to staff that 91 l should not be called in

response to a behavioral crisis unless the student's behavior poses an imminent and substantial

l J

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 12 of 23
risk of serious injury to the student and/or others and cannot be safely addressed using deescalation strategies and/or school and community resources.
9. By June 1, 2015, Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with the written materials for the TCIS Training. During the Stipulation Period, DOE will provide Plaintiffs with any rev1s1ons to the TCIS Training materials within 30 days of receiving those revisions from Cornell.
l 0. 'The DOE policies set forth in Exhibit A shall be communicated to all principals in writing within 30 days of the effective elate of the Chancellor's Regulation in which these policies are incorporated. Defendants will provide Plaintiffs with written confirmation that DOE has made this communication within seven days of the communication.
11. By October 1 of each year, the DOE policies set forth m Exhibit A shall be communicated to all principals. Such communication shall advise principals of their obligations under Exhibit /\ and shall instruct principals that: (a) their school's Crisis Intervention Team must develop a Crisis De-escalation Plan as part of their Consolidated School And Youth Development Plan; (b) lhcir school's Crisis Intervention Team must conduct an orientation for all school staff, including non-instructional staff, in accordance with Exhibit A; and (c) their school must certify, in the school's Consolidated School And Youth Development Plan, that the orientation session was conducted; and (d) their Crisis Intervention Team must do the following at the orientation session: (i) review the requirements set forth in Exhibit A regarding the policies and procedures for when to seek emergency medical assistance for students in behavioral crises; (ii) advise staff that 911 must be called when a student's behavior poses an imminent and substantial risk of injury to himself' or others and the situation cannot be safely addressed by school staff or the in-school or community resources identified in the Crisis De-escalation Plan;
l )

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 13 of 23
(iii) advise staff that 91 l should not be called in response to a behavioral crisis unless the student's behavior poses an imminent and substantial risk of serious injury to the student and/or others and cannot be safely addressed using de-escalation strategies and/or school or community resources; and (iv) advise staff that opportunities for de-escalation training may become available through the year and to contact the principal/designee for further information. By October 3 l of each year, Defendants will provide Plaintiffs with written confirmation that all principals have been instructed in accordance with this paragraph.
12. Effective July 1, 2015, de-escalation and the policies and procedures set forth in Exhibit A will be addressed annually at one of the D75 meetings for all of the principals of D75 schools, if such meetings are held. Within 30 days of the meeting, Oefendants will provide Plaintiffs with written confirmation that these topics were addressed at the meeting if such meetings are held.
t 3. Effective July l, 2015, DOE shall instruct principals to encourage employees assigned to Agency Schools and Sites to attend voluntary TCIS Training. By July 31 of each year, Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with written confirmation that this instruction to principals has been given.
E. DOE REPORTING 1. An Occurrence Report must be created for every situation 111 which EMS is
contacted in response to a student's behavior rcsulling from an emotional/psychological condition and such report will indicate that EMS was contact<.:<l. All Occurrence Reports shall be stored in the Online Occurrence Reporting System ("OORS") or any other superseding electronic data system used by DOE in the future to collect such reports.
13

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 14 of 23
2. DOE shall take the following steps: (a) modify OORS to include a reminder that will appear in bold for all users who submit a report in OORS that if EMS was contacted or responded to a school-related incident, the "EMS Contacted" box on the "Suspect and/or Victims" tab must be checked and all required information about the EMS contact and/or response must be entered; and (b) make resources available to all schools to guide them in reporting when EMS is contacted or responds to a school-related incident. In the event DOE intends to take any additional steps to modify OORS with regard to capturing information regarding EMS contacts and/or responses and such modifications either materially change this reminder and/or replace it with alternative modifications, DOE shall notify Plaintiffs.
3. DOE shall provide to Plaintiffs semi-annually six-month data reports that contain the following information:
a. Data aggregated by school and DBN number showing (a) the number of EMS calls with incident code "Emotional/Psychological Condition-Student'' and (b) the number of EMS transports with incident code "Emotional/Psychological Condition-Student;" and data aggregated by school and DBN number showing (a) the number of EMS calls with incident code ''Medical Condition Other Than Injury-Student" and (b) the number of EMS transports with incident code "Medical Condition Other Than Injury-Student.'' This data will be provided for these two incident codes as Jong as these incident codes continue to be used. If subsequently any other incident code is implemented reflecting calls or transports for behavioral or psychiatric issues, the data will be provided by that incident code. If the number of such incidents within an incident code at a school is between one and nine, DOE shall indicate only that there were between one and five incidents or hetw·cen six and nine incidents. lfthe number of such incidents within an incident code at a school is zero, DOE will so report.
\4

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 15 of 23

b. Data aggregated by school district indicating the race, Individualized

Education Program ("IEP'') status, and age of the students (a) for whom EMS was called and (b)

who were removed by EMS. 1f the number of such incidents is between one and nine, DOE shall

indicate only that there were between one and five incidents or between six and nine incidents.

1f the number of such incidents is zero, DOE will so report.

c. The first data reporting period will be from January 1 to June 30, 2015. The

final data reporting period will be from January l to June 30, 2018. The data shall be provided

to Plaintiffs within 60 days after the six-month data period ends.

4.

DOE shall provide to Plaintiffs, every four months, a report showing the number

of DOE employees assigned to each Designated Site who have received TCIS Training or TCIS

Refresher Training within the two-year period preceding the last date of each four-month

reporting period. These reports will also indicate if the Special Needs Coordinator on the

Building Response Team of the building in which each Designated Site is located has received

TCIS Training or TCIS Refresher Training within the two-year period preceding the last date of

each four-month reporting period. Defendants shall provide these repmts to Plaintiffs within 30

days after the last date of each reporting period. The first reporting period will end on December

31, 2015 and the repo11 will be provided to Plaintiffs by January 30, 20 l 6. The final reporting

period will end on April 30, 2018 and the repo11 will be provided to Plaintiffs by May 30, 2018.

5.

By December 15, 2015, and annually thereafter, DOE will provide to Plaintiffs a

report showing the number of staff assigned to each Designated Site and the number of students

enrolled at each Designated Site as of October 31 of that year.

15

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 16 of 23
F. DOE PUBLISHING I. By November 1 of each year, DOE shall publish on its website the name(s) of and
contact infomrntion for individual(s) who coordinate the provision of TCIS Training. G. FDNY REPORTING I. FDNY shall provide to Plaintiffs semi-annually, six-month data repo1ts containing
the number of calls to EMS and the number of EMS transports from the street addresses that correspond to schools and associated with the dispatch code ''EDP" or any other dispatch code implemented during the Stipulation Period that refers to persons with behavioral, emotional or psychiatric issues during the six-month period. If the number of incidents for a street address that corresponds to a school is between one and three, FDNY will report only that the number is between one and three.
2. The first data reporting period will be from January 1 to June 30, 2015. The final data repo1ting period will be from January 1 to June 30, 2018. The data shall be provided to Plaintiffs within 60 days after the end of each six-month data period. Ill. MONETARY AGREEMENT
l. Plaintiff<>' claims for damages have been resolved, subject to the Court's approval of Plaintiffs' Infant Compromise applications.
2. This Stipulation and Order of Settlement does not resolve Plaintiffs' claims for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs rnust make a demand for attorneys' fees within 45 days of the date of entry of this Stipulation and Order of Settlement. The patties shall make good-faith efforts to reach an agreement as to the amount of attorneys' fees and costs. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, they will prncecd in accordance with the Couti's direction.
16

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 17 of 23
Plaintiffs' deadline for seeking attorneys' fees shall be governed hy the terms of this paragraph and any subseq ucnt order of the Court.
3. Plaintiffs' right to seek attorneys' fees for any work performed after entry of this Stipulation and Order of Settlement is limited to reasonable fees totaling no more than $110,000 for the entire Stipulation Period. However, this limitation shall not apply to any time spent on a successful enforcement motion, including a motion to extend the Stipulation Period. The parties shall make good-faith efforts to reach an agreement as to the amount of attorneys' fees for any work performed atter entry of this Stipulation and Order of Settlement. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, they will seek a judicial conference. IV. ADMINISTRATION OF STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT
I. This Stipulation and Order of Settlement may be executed in counterparts, and exchanged by facsimile or email.
2. This Stipulation and Order of Settlement shall be binding on Defendants and any of tbeir employees, agents, representatives, officers, assigns, or successors in interest, as well as on Plaintiffs.
3. This Stipulation and Order of Settlement is solely for the purpose of settlement, and does not reflect the positions of the parties in any other judicial or administrative action or proceeding. Any pa1iy may use this Stipulation and Order of Settlement in connection with any subsequent action or proceeding petiaining to this Stipulation and Order of Settlement. In addition, during the Stipulation Period, any party may seek to admit this Stipulation and Order of Settlement in other, future litigation concerning incidents and/or issues similar to those at issue here.
l 7

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 18 of 23

4. Tbe pm1ies to this Stipulation and Order of Settlement shall endeavor in good

faith to resolve informally any differences regarding interpretation of and compliance with this

Stipulation and Order of Settlement prior to bringing such matters to the Court for resolution.

5.

If at any time beginning one year after the entry of this Stipulation and Order of

Settlement and prior to the expiration of this Stipulation and Order of Settlement, Plaintiffs

believe Defendants have failed to comply with the terms of this Stipulation and Order of

Settlement, the parties shall make good-faith efforts to meet and confer before the filing of a

motion or otherwise contacting the Court regarding the alleged noncompliance with the terms of

this Stipulation and Order of Settlement. In particular, Plaintiffs shall provide written notice to

Defendants, detailing specific evidence of non-compliance with specific term(s) of this

Stipulation and Order of Settlement. Within 14 days of such written notice, Defendants shall

provide a written explanation detailing how they have cured/complied with the particular term(s)

of the Stipulation and Order of Settlement. In the event that Plaintiffs continue to believe in

good faith that there is a compliance problem, Plaintiffs may then provide written notice within

seven days of receipt of Defendants' written explanation requesting an in-person meeting.

Within 14 days of such request or upon an alternatively agreed-upon time, Plaintiffs and

Defendants shall meet in person to discuss any remaining compliance issues and work in good

faith to address the issues. If the parties cannot agree on a resolution of the issues, Plaintiffs may

make an application to the Court within 21 days of the meeting seeking appropriate relief.

6.

If at any time after entry of this Stipulation and Order of Settlement and prior to

its expiration, Plaintiffs believe that there have been one or more transports of students from

schools to hospital emergency rooms for an emotional/psychological condition in situations that

do 1Jot satisfy the standard for such emergency transports. Plaintiffs may notify Defendants and

18

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 19 of 23

provide releases from the parent or guardian for the records of each student who has been the

subject of such transport. Defendants will then make good-faith efforts to investigate the

incident(s) and report their findings to Plaintiffs.

7.

Nothing herein shall bar Plaintiffs from pa1iicipating in any other lawsuit alleging

one or more inappropriate calls to 911 and/or transpo1is from schools to hospital emergency

rooms in response to a behavioral crisis arising from an emotional/psychological condition,

provided such incident(s) occurred after the entry of this Stipulation and Order of Settlement,

an<l provided that during the Stipulation Period, in any lawsuit concerning such incident(s), each

Plaintiff may not challenge any of the provisions of this Stipulation and Order of Settlement and

may only seek: (a) damages; (b) injunctive relief that is limited to his/her individual

circumstances; and (c) costs and fees.

8.

Throughout the Stipulation Period the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Stipulation

and Order of Settlement upon the filing of an appropriate motion by any paity. The pmiies shall

request that the Court indicate in the docket that it is retaining jurisdiction over this Stipulation

and Order of Settlement. Upon the finding of good cause shown, the Court may grant such relief

as it deems just and proper, including but not limited to: (a) extending the te1m of the Stipulation

of Settlement, in whole or in pa1t; (b) modifying the Stipulation of Settlement by, inter a!ia,

modifying the definition of Stipulation Period, requiring more record-keeping, training,

monitoring and/or policy changes; and/or (c) holding the parties in contempt for their

noncompliance. If the Court extends the term of the Stipulation of Settlement and/or orders

additional relief, the Court may award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' foes and costs for their

noncompliance application.

19

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 20 of 23

9.

The parties shall sign all documents necessary to provide Magistrate Judge James

L. Cott with jurisdiction over this matter.

Dated:

New York, New York
December .a_,2014

Legal Services NYC

ZACHARY W. CARTER

Attorneys for Plaintiffs T.R, J.R, K.J., J.R., Corporation Counsel of the City of New York

CJ., J.M., Y.P., N.R., M.E., D.E., T.W., A.A., Attorney for Defendants

A.D., S.D., N.C.R., C.R., I.S., Q.A., R.M.T.,
and R.T. 349 E. 149111 Street

100 Church Street, Room 2-180, 2-113
New York, New York 10007 (212) 356-2083, 0896

Bronx, New York 10451

ticlfv-J ~y: .~ir~- FJ?to,,_:it,,_,J_ (1.Jl~.)J.l2&-J723

----
2---itr::::

,

r-·)'

Chr.istopher D. Lamb

Marilyn Richter

Nancy Bedard

Omar H. Tuffaha

Tara Foster

Assistants Corporation Counsel

Nelson Mar

Nanette Schorr

Cuti Hecker Wang LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs K.P. and W.P.
305 Broadway, Suite 607 New York, New York l 0007 (212) 620-2063

Cl

. R/\BLE JAMES L. con
20

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 21 of 23
T.H.. et al. v. Farina. et al. (13 Civ. 8777) Exhibit A to the Stipulation and Order of Settlement
SECTION I
When a student engages in behavior that poses a substantial risk of serious injury to the student or others, schools must determine the appropriate way to manage the behavior and whether the situation can be safely de-escalated by scbool staff as set forth below. Jn such situations, the following procedures must be followed:
l) The principal/designee must be notified of the situation and must attempt to reach the parent. 1 The parent must be given an opportunity to speak by telephone or in person with bis/her child where safoty considerations permit and where it will not interfere with school staffs efforts to de-escalate the situation.
2) Every effort must be made by responding school staff to safely de-escalate the behavior where possible using strategies and interventions for addressing behavioral crises and the in-school and community resources identified in the school's Crisis De-escalation Plan. If the classroom teacher or the responding staff member is unable to de-escalate the behavior, the teacher/staff member should seek assistance from staff members trained in crisis de-escalation. The teacher/staff member may also seek assistance from other appropriate staff and resources including the assistant principal, dean, a member of the school's Crisis Intervention Team, a member of the Building Response Team, a guidance counselor, School-Based Mental Health Clinic (''SBMH") or a School-Based Health Center with mental health services ("SBHC") if there is one on-site, or the Crisis Mobile Response Team if available in the borough.
3) However, where a student's behavior poses an imminent and substantial risk of serious injury to himself or others and the situation cannot be safely addressed by school staff or the support services set fo1ih above, the principal/designee must call 911. Jn such situations where it is not practicable to contact the principal/designee, the responding staff member must call 911 and immediately thereaHer notify the principal/designee.
4) Wben 911 is called, the principal/designee must immediately attempt to reach the parent to notify him/her that 91 I was called.
5) If the parent bas arrived at the school and it will not interfere with the proper discharge of the on-scene 911 responders' duties and responsibilities, the parent must be given an opportunity to speak to the 911 on-scene responders and the student. If the parent has not arrived at school but has been reached by phone, the parent must be given an
1 ·'Parent'' means the student's parent or g,uardian or any person in a parental or custodial relationship to the student or the student if' s/he is an emancipated mi nor or is 18 or older.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 22 of 23
opportunity to speak to the on-scene 911 responders and the student if it is feasi blc and it will not interfere with the proper discharge of the on-scene 911 responders' duties and responsibilities
6) If the parent requests that his or her child not be transported to the hospital, the on-scene 911 responders will obtain relevant infonnation from DOE staff, the parent, and others as appropriate and determine whether the parent's request may be honored in accordance with FDNY policies and procedures for Refusal of Medical Assistance.
7) If it is determined that the student does not require emergency treatment and/or transport, school officials and the parent shall discuss appropriate immediate next steps, including but not limited to whether the student should be returned to class.
8) If the school staff is unable to contact the student's parent, the on-scene 911 responders will obtain relevant information from DOE staff and others as appropriate and then determine whether the student requires emergency medical treatment and/or transport. Tf it is determined that the student will be transported to the hospital, school staff must accompany the student. If the parent does not arrive by the end of the staff member's school day, the staff member must contact the principal/designee.
9) ln no circumstance should 911 be called or employed as a disciplinary response or disciplinary measure because of a student's behavior. Furthermore, 911 should not be used in lieu of or as an alternative to de-escalation strategies or resources, where such strategics and resources can be safely used to address the crises as set forth in 2 above.
l 0) Schools may not request or require a mental health clearance letter as a condition of a student attending or returning to school.
11) Following any behavioral crisis, school staff should meet with the parent (and the student where appropriate) to discuss appropriate positive behavioral supports and interventions for the student.
SECTION II
Each school's Crisis Response/Prevention Education/Intervention Team (Crisis Intervention Team) must complete a Crisis De-Escalation Plan as part of its Consolidated School and Youth Development Plan. Such plan must include:
1) Strategies for de-escalating behavioral crisis situations.
2) Identification of locations in the school building in which students in crisis may be safely isolated from others.
3) Idcntiiication of school staff trained in de-escalation techniques.

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 71 Filed 12/15/14 Page 23 of 23
4) Identification of in-school and community resources that are available to the school and parents (e.g., mental health clinics, mobile crisis teams, facilities that provide urgent/same-day mental health assessments).
5) Description of how crisis de-escalation and response protocols are communicated to school staff.
SECTION III
1) The principal/designee must file an Online Occurrence Reporting System Report ("OORS Report") within 24 hours of the incident for all school-related incidents in which 911 was contacted for a student. Upon request, parents have the right to receive a copy of their child's occurrence report in accordance with Chancellor's Regulation A-820 and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA").
SECTION IV
1) Each Crisis Intervention Team must conduct an orientation for all school stafl~ including non-instructional staff, within the first two months of the school year. The orientation session must include a presentation of the policies and procedures set forth in this Regulation and the school's Crisis De-Escalation Plan. Additionally, within the first two months of the beginning of the school year, the policies and procedures set forth in this Regulation and the Crisis De-escalation Plan must be discussed at a School Safety Committee meeting at which an in-house School Safety Agent Level IIl/designee was present.

 
 Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 113
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------)( T.H., et al.,
Plaintiffs, - against-

Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 8

USDCSDNY

DOCUMENT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

. DOC#:

I

____

--~~-+-"""""',_..

DATE FILED: ti !ti//(

MEMORANDUM ORDER

13-CV-8777 (JLC)

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.,

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------)(
JAMES L. COTT, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs T.H., K.P., K.J., C.J., Y.P., M.E., T.W., A.D., N.C.R., I.S., and R.M.T.

commenced this action on December 11, 2013 on their own behalf and on behalf of their minor

children J.H., W.P., J.R., J.M., N.R., D.E., A.A., S.D., C.R., Q.A., and R.T. (the "Infants"),

respectively, for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages against the City of New York, its Department of Education and its Fire Department. 1 Plaintiffs, who are the parents of 11 New

York City public school children, alleged in their amended complaint that their children have

been subjected to and damaged by an unlawful practice and policy of using Emergency Medical

Services to remove children with disruptive behavior from schools when school personnel have

no reasonable belief that the children are in need of emergency medical care. Defendants denied

the allegations, and the parties vigorously litigated the case until they decided to make efforts to

resolve their dispute. To that end, beginning on June 30, 2014, the Court held five settlement

conferences with the parties, culminating with a settlement in principle on November 6, 2014.

The parties then submitted a Stipulation and Order of Settlement ("Stipulation") to the Court for

1

Although known to Defendants, Plaintiffs are named in this case using only their initials

in order to preserve the privacy guaranteed the plaintiff children by the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., as well as by the Family .

Educational Rights Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232(g) and 34 C.F.R. § 99. Amended Complamt,

~ 9 (Dkt. No. 19).

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 113 Filed 01/14/15 Page 2 of 8
approval on December 15, 2014, which the Court has since "so ordered."2 See Stipulation (Dkt. No. 71). As part of their settlement, the parties agreed to resolve Plaintiffs' claims for damages, subject to the Court's approval of Plaintiffs' infant compromise applications. Id., at 16.
Plaintiffs have now submitted 11 applications to the Court pursuant to Local Rule 83.2 for an order approving the settlement of each of the Infants' damages claims in this action. Dkt. Nos. 79,82,85,88,91,94,97, 100, 103, 106,and 110. Forthereasonssetforthbelow,lfind that the proposed settlements are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Infants, and therefore grant the motions and approve the settlements. A. Standards Applicable to an Infant Compromise
In determining whether an infant compromise should be approved, "the Court's role is to 'exercise the most jealous care that no injustice be done' to the infant." Southerland v. City of New York, No. CV-99-3329 (CPS), 2006 WL 2224432, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2006) (quoting Anderson v. Sam Airlines, No. 94-CV-1935, 1997 WL 1179955 (E.D.N. Y. Apr. 25, 1997)). In this District, Local Rule 83.2(a)(l) requires that
[a]n action by or on behalf of an infant or incompetent shall not be settled or compromised ... without leave of the Court embodied in an order, judgment or decree. The proceeding upon an application to settle or compromise such an action shall conform, as nearly as may be, to the New York State statutes and rules, but the Court, for cause shown, may dispense with any New York State requirement. As Magistrate Judge Pitman recently observed in a comprehensive discussion of the applicable standards in this context, " [c]onsistent with the applicable New York State statutes and rules, the analysis in this jurisdiction centers on 'whether: (1) the best interests of the infant are protected by the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement; and (2) the proposed
The parties have consented to my exercising plenary jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Dkt. Nos. 69, 70.
2

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 113 Filed 01/14/15 Page 3 of 8
settlement, including any legal fees and expenses to be paid, as part of the proposal, are fair and reasonable."' Orlander v. McKnight, No. 12-CV-4745 (HBP), 2013 WL 4400537, at *3 (Aug. 15, 2013) (quoting Martegani v. Cirrus Design Corp., 687 F. Supp. 2d 373, 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Local Civ. R. 83.2(a); N.Y. Jud. L. § 474; N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 1205-08); see also Edionwe v. Hussain, 7 A.D.3d 751, 753, 777 N.Y.S.2d 520, 522 (2d Dep't 2004) (required analysis is whether settlement is "fair and reasonable and in the infant plaintiffs best interests"). "There is no bright-line test for concluding that a particular settlement is fair." Sch. for Language & Commc 'n Dev. v. New York State Dep 't ofEduc., No. 02-CV-0269 (JS) (JO), 2010 WL 1740416, at *2 (E.D.N .Y. Apr. 7, 2010) (Report & Recommendation), adopted at 2010 WL 1752183 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2010) (citing Newman v. Stein, 464 F.2d 689, 692-93 (2d Cir. 1972)). Moreover, the Second Circuit has noted that "Rule 83.2 is hardly a rigid obligation imposed on district courts." Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 F.3d 642, 655 (2d Cir. 1999). Put another way, "[d]istrict courts have broad discretion when conducting an infant compromise hearing." Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir. 2010).
Despite this broad discretion, a court cannot approve a proposed infant compromise unless it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate," based on a comparison of "the terms of the compromise with the likely rewards of litigation." Neilson, 199 F.3d at 654 (quoting Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 67 F.3d 1072, 1079 (2d Cir. 1995)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In making this determination, the court should "'form an educated estimate of the complexity, expense, and likely duration of such litigation ... and all other factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the proposed compromise."' Martegani, 687 F. Supp. 2d at 377 (alteration in original) (quoting Newman, 464 F.2d at 692). These other factors
3

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 113 Filed 01/14/15 Page 4 of 8
include: the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; the risks of establishing liability; the risks of establishing damages; the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; and the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks oflitigation. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Williams, No. 04-CV-4575 (CLP), 2006 WL 2711538, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2006) (quoting City ofDetroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000)).
A settlement is presumptively fair and reasonable if '"(i) the settlement is not collusive but was reached after arm's length negotiation; (ii) the proponents have counsel experienced in similar cases; [and] (iii) there has been sufficient discovery to enable counsel to act intelligently. . . ."'Baez v. City ofNew York, No. 09-CV-2635 (RRM) (JO), 2010 WL 1992537, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2010) (Report & Recommendation) (alterations in original), adopted at 2010 WL 1991521 (E.D.N.Y. May 17, 2010) (quoting Ross v. A.H Robins Co., 700 F. Supp. 682, 683 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). Additionally, it is a well-settled proposition that a settlement negotiated by the natural guardian of an infant is presumptively fair and in the best interests of the child. See, e.g., Sch. for Language & Commc 'n Dev., 2010 WL 1740416, at *3 (citing Sabater v. Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc., No. OO-CV-8026 (LMM), 2001WL1111505, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2001) and Stahl v. Rhee, 220 A.D.2d 39, 46, 643 N.Y.S.2d 148, 153 (2d Dep't 1996)). B. The Settlements Here Are Fair and Reasonable and in the Best Interests of the Infants
Applying these standards, I conclude that the infant compromises proposed by Plaintiffs are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Infants.
4

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 113 Filed 01/14/15 Page 5 of 8
First, there is no evidence of collusion in this case. Rather, having presided over five settlement conferences with the parties and having reviewed the Plaintiffs' submissions, which include declarations of all of the parent Plaintiffs and their attorneys in support of their motions, I am confident that the parties agreed to this compromise only after dealing extensively and exclusively at arm's length with each other.
Second, Plaintiffs' counsel are experienced in cases such as this one and have acted in their clients' best interests in negotiating this settlement.
Third, I am satisfied that sufficient litigation has occurred to allow for an educated analysis of the issues involved and the proposed compromises. The parties were engaged in discovery at the time settlement discussions began. In addition, Defendants had moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their available administrative remedies pursuant to the IDEA, as required before bringing a claim in federal court. On June 30, 2014, I presided over the initial settlement conference during which the parent Plaintiffs attended, and at which their damage claims were fully discussed.3 I am satisfied on the basis of that conference that the parties had a sufficient understanding of the facts to enable an intelligent evaluation of the risks and benefits of further litigation.
Finally, there is nothing in the record to rebut the presumption that the settlements that the parent Plaintiffs have agreed to are fair and in the best interests of the Infants.
Under the proposed settlements, each of the Infants and their parents will receive the following:
• The damages settlement for T.H. and J.H. totals $111,908.20. Of this total, $100,000 is compensation for J.H.'s emotional damages related to the removals of
Given that the parent Plaintiffs and their attorneys appeared in court and participated fully in the settlement conference, the Court will dispense with a hearing at this time, which would otherwise be required under New York State law, pursuant to Local Rule 83.2(a)(l) ("[T]he Court, for cause shown, may dispense with any New York State requirement.").
5

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 113 Filed 01/14/15 Page 6 of 8
J.H. from his school, $10,000 is compensation for T.H.'s emotional damages related to these removals, and $1,908.20 is compensation for T.H.'s out of pocket costs and lost wages related to the removals. A portion of J.H. 's settlement, $56,000, is being placed in a dedicated interest-bearing account for his future benefit. The balance of J.H. 's emotional damages settlement, $44,000, will be used to pay for his family's more immediate needs, including the need to secure more stable housing in Vermont, where he now resides, and a vehicle in order to facilitate J.H.'s enrollment in various afterschool activities. Dkt. No. 80.
• The damages settlement for T.W. and A.A. totals $25,288. Of this total, $23,000 is compensation for A.A.' s emotional distress related to the removals from his school, $2,000 is compensation for T.W.'s emotional distress related to these removals, and $288 is compensation for T.W.'s out of pocket costs related to the removals. A.A.'s compensation will be placed in a Trust such as a Special Needs Trust for his benefit. Dkt. No. 83.
• The damages settlement for M.E. and D.E. totals $80,176.75. Of this total, $78, 176.75 is compensation for D.E. 's emotional distress related to the removals from his school, $1,824 is compensation for M.E.' s emotional distress related to these removals, and $176.75 is compensation for M.E.'s out of pocket costs related to the removals. D.E.'s compensation will be placed in a Trust such as a Special Needs Trust for his benefit. Dkt. No. 86.
• The damages settlement for N.C.R. and C.R. totals $20,040. Of this total, $20,000 is compensation for C.R.'s emotional distress related to the attempted removals from his school, and $40 is compensation for N.C.R. 's out of pocket costs related to the attempted removals. $10,000 of C.R.' s compensation will be placed in a Trust such as a Special Needs Trust for his benefit, while the balance of the compensation will be used for his family's immediate needs, including the purchase of a vehicle. Dkt. No. 89.
• The damages settlement for K.J. and J.R. totals $61,488.25. Of this total, $52,500 is compensation for J.R. 's emotional distress related to the removals from his school, $5,000 is compensation for K.J.'s emotional distress related to these removals, and $3,988.25 is compensation for K.J.'s out of pocket costs and lost wages related to the removals. $30,500 of J.R.'s compensation will be placed in a Trust such as a Special Needs Trust for his benefit, while the balance of the compensation will be used for his family's immediate needs. Dkt. No. 93.
• The damages settlement for Y.P. and N.R. totals $33,047.50. Of this total, $20,000 is compensation for N.R.'s emotional distress related to calls for EMS, threatened removal and removal from his school, $10,000 is compensation for Y.P .' s emotional distress related to these removals, and $3 ,047.50 is compensation for Y.P's out of pocket costs and wage loss related to the removals. N.R.'s compensation will be placed in a Trust such as a Special Needs Trust for his benefit. Dkt. No. 95. 6

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 113 Filed 01/14/15 Page 7 of 8
• The damages settlement for R.M.T. and R.T. totals $50,788.50. Of this total, $40,000 is compensation for R.T. 's emotional distress related to the removals from his school, $10,000 is compensation for R.M.T.'s emotional distress related to these removals, and $788.50 is compensation for R.M.T.'s out of pocket costs and lost wages related to the removals. R.T.' s compensation will be placed in a Trust such as a Special Needs Trust for his benefit. Dkt. No. 98.
• The damages settlement for A.D. and S.D. totals $25,074.50. Of this total, $20,000 is compensation for S.D. 's emotional distress related to the removals from his school, $5,000 is compensation for A.D.'s emotional distress related to these removals, and $74.50 is compensation for A.D.'s out of pocket costs related to the removals. S.D. 's compensation will be placed in a Trust such as a Special Needs Trust for his benefit. Dkt. No. 101.
• The damages settlement for I.S. and Q.A. totals $20,110. Of this total, $20,000 is compensation for Q.A.'s emotional distress related to the removal from his school, and $110 is compensation for I. S.' s out of pocket costs and lost wages related to the removal. Q.A.'s compensation will be used, in part, to pay for travel abroad where Q.A. will reunite with his father, as well as for certain afterschool activities and future educational and vocational training. Dkt. No. 104.
• The damages settlement for C.J. and J.M. totals $37,500. Of this total, $30,000 is compensation for J.M.'s emotional distress related to the removal from his school, and $7,500 is compensation for C.J.'s emotional distress related to this removal. J.M.'s compensation will be placed in a Trust such as a Special Needs Trust for his benefit. Dkt. No. 107.
• The damages settlement for K.P. and W.P. totals $37,200. Of this total, $35,000 is compensation for W.P.'s emotional distress related to the removals from his school, and $2,200 is compensation for K.P .' s out of pocket costs related to the removals. W.P.'s compensation will be placed in a Trust such as a Special Needs Trust for his benefit. Dkt. No. 112.
The Court concludes that these settlement amounts are fair, reasonable, and adequate. As
a threshold matter, upon the parties' reaching an impasse during the course of settlement
discussions, the Court proposed a formula to calculate damages, to which the parties agreed.
These settlements are thus informed, at least in significant part, by the Court's own sense of their
value. Moreover, given the pendency of Defendants' motion to dismiss, and the fact that the
outcome of litigation can never be predicted with certainty, the results here are reasonable under
7

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 113 Filed 01/14/15 Page 8 of 8
the circumstances. I note further that if this case had proceeded to trial, there would have been the potential for trauma (or, at a minimum extreme discomfort) on the Infants in recounting their removals from school. All other things being equal, it is in the Infants' interests to avoid a trial given the reasonableness of these settlements. 4 C. Conclusion
Based on all of the circumstances of this case, I conclude that the proposed settlements to resolve Plaintiffs' damages claims are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Infants. Plaintiffs' motions are therefore granted and the settlements of the Infants' claims are approved.
The Clerk is hereby directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 79, 82, 85, 88, 91, 94, 97, 100, 103, 106, and 110.
SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York
January 14, 2015

4

The Court notes that the Stipulation and Order of Settlement explicitly leaves open

Plaintiffs' claims for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Dkt. No. 71, at 16. By the terms of

the Stipulation, Plaintiffs are to make a demand within 45 days of entry of the Stipulation and the

parties are then to make good-faith efforts to reach an agreement as to the amount of fees and

costs. Id.
8

 
 Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 119 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 4
l USDCSDNY

Ir DOCUMENT
EI FILED ff .J ..,Jr~..t·i~.r.·?r.Ts~)~ {.)11.\J. Tr'.,.......,ALT·L,1,.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

f
.

DDAOTCE#F:I-LE-n:~'-1/.,._~---cr-.-

1

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

T.H., individually and as next friend to minor child J.H.; K.P., as next friend to minor child W.P.; K.J., individually and as next friend to minor child J.R.; C.J., individually and as next friend to minor child J.M.; Y.P., individually and as next friend to minor child N.R.; M.E., individually and as next ftiend to minor child D.E.; T.W., individually and as next friend to minor child A.A.; A.D., individually and as next friend to minor child S.D.; N.C.R., individually and as next friend to minor child C.R.; LS., individually and as next friend to minor child Q.A.; R.M.T.. individually and as next friend to minor child R.T.;

Plaintiffs, -against-

13 Civ. 8777 (JMF)(JLC)

CARMEN FARINA, as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education; the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; the CITY OF NEW YORK; DANIEL A. NIGRO, as Commissioner of the Fire Department of New York; and JOHN/JANE DOE #'s 1-24 in their individual capacities;
Defendants.

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT REGARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES

WHEREAS a Stipulation and Order of Settlement was entered in this action on December 15, 2014 ("the December 15, 2014 Settlement Agreement"), pursuant to which the parties resolved Plaintiffs' claims for damages and injunctive relief in this action; and
WHEREAS an Infant Compromise Order was enteted in this action on January 14, 2015 (';the January 14, 2015 Infant Compromise .Order") approving Plaintiffs' Infant Compromise applications; and subsequent applications seeking clarifications and/or modifications of the January 14_, 2015 Infant Compromise Order were approved by the Court 011 January 26, 2015 and April 9, 2015; and

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 119 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS the December 15, 2014 Settlement Agreement did not resolve Plaintiffs' claims for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and
WHEREAS the parties now desire to resolve all claims for all fees and costs related to this matter accrued through December 15, 2014, as contemplated by Section III of the December 15, 2014 Settlement Agreement, without further proceedings;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees and costs related to this matter accrued thrnugh December 15, 2014, as contemplated by Section III of the December 15, 2014 Settlement Agreement, are hereby resolved and dismissed, with prejudice, and without any fees or costs in excess of the amount specified in paragraph "2" below.
2. The City of New York hereby agrees to pay Plaintiffs' counsel the sum total of SIX HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($613,000.00) for all attorneys' foes and costs related to this matter accrued through December 15, 2014, as contemplated by Section III of the December J5, 2014 Settlement Agreement. Payment will be distributed in the following amounts: FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($500,000.00) to Legal Services NYC by check made payable
to "Legal Services NYC"; and ONE HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($113,000.00) to Cuti Hecker Wang LLP, by check made payable to "Cuti Hecker Wang LLP."
3. In consideration for the payments described in paragraph "2" above, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' counsel agree to the withdrawal and dismissal with prejudice of all claims for attorneys' fees and costs related to this matter accrued through December 15, 2014, as
-2 -

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 119 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 4
contemplated by Section UI of the December 15, 2014 Settlement Agreement, and agree to release and discharge Defendants Chancellor Carmen Farina, Commissioner Daniel A. Nigro, John/Jane Does Nos. l-24, the City of New York ("City"), the New York City Department of Education ("DOE"), and the Fire Department of the City of New York ("FDNY"), their successors or assigns, and all present and former officials, employees, representatives, and agents of the City, DOE, and FDNY from any and all liability, claims, and/or rights of action arising from or relating to any claims for attorneys' fees and costs related to this matter accrned through December 15, 2014, as contemplated by Section III of the December 15, 2014 Settlement Agreement.
4. Plaintiffs' counsel shall execute and deliver to Defendants' counsel
releases based on the terms of paragraph "2" above, together with tax identification number(s) and substitute W-9 forms. Payment of the amounts described in paragraph "2" above is subject to and conditioned upon delivery of these documents to Defendants' counsel.
5. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be an admission by the City, DOE, FDNY, or any Defendant, that Plaintiffs' attorneys would, absent this stipulation, be entitled to the amount set foi-th in paragraph "2" above.
6. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a policy or practice, or evidence of a policy or practice, of the City, DOE, or FDNY.
7. Plaintiffs reserve the right to make an application for attorneys' fees for work performed after December 15, 2014, as contemplated by Section III of the December 15, 2014 Settlement Agreement, and Defendants reserve all defenses to any such application.
8. This Agreement shall not be admissible in, nor is it related to, any other litigation, proceeding, or settlement negotiation, except as necessary to enforce its terms.
-3 -

Case 1:13-cv-08777-JLC Document 119 Filed 04/28/15 Page 4 of 4

9. This Stipulation and Order of Settlement Regarding Attorneys' Fees

contains all of the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto concerning fees, and costs related to this matter accrued through December 15, 2014, as contemplated by Section III of the December 15, 2014 Settlement Agreement.

10. The Parties further agree that this Stipulation and Order of Settlement Regarding Attorneys' Fees may be executed in counterparts, and that a signature received by

facsimile or electronic mail shall be deemed valid for all purposes.

Dated:

New Y<?;:k, New York
ApriJ~ 2015

Legal Services NYC
Attomeys for Plaintiffs T.H., J.H., K.J., J.R., C.J., J.M., Y.P., N.R., M.E., D.E., T.W., A.A., A.D., S.D., N.C.R., C.R., LS., Q.A., R.M.T., and R.T.
349 E. 1491h Street
Bronx, New York 10451

J:'.~- (7 l,8)/9?,8-<-J23

Byy
{_.Ght1stopher

o.-Lam

ZACHARYW. CARTER Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Attorney for Defendants I00 Church Street, Room 2· 180
New York. New York 10007
(212) 356-2083
(\

Cuti Hecker Wang LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs K.P. and W.P. 305 Broadway, Suite 607 New York, New York 10007 (212) 620-2063

i.

BLE JAMES L. COTT
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

!/ / l f; /;i;-

t,\l'--
-4-