Case: Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy v. Hartford Board of Education

3:04-cv-01338 | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Filed Date: Aug. 11, 2004

Closed Date: Oct. 18, 2006

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case about whether a Protection and Advocacy agency (P&A) can access the grounds, students, and student records of a non-residential therapeutic school. On August 11, 2004, Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy (OPA), Connecticut’s P&A, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. OPA filed this lawsuit against the Hartford Board of Education (Hartford), which operated the non-residential therapeutic school, under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act), Protection and Advocacy of Human Rights Act (PAIR Act), and Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (PAIMI Act). Represented by itself, OPA sought injunctive relief that required Hartford provide OPA access to the school and contact information for parents and guardians of students. OPA claimed that students at the Hartford school were persons with disabilities under the DD Act and PAIR Act, and that the school constituted a facility under the PAIMI Act. Judge Janet C. Hall presided over this matter.

OPA began its investigation after it received multiple complaints concerning inappropriate restraints and seclusions at the school. Hartford denied OPA access to the school’s students, claimed that OPA could not investigate the school under the DD Act, PAIR Act, and PAIMI Act, and that federal law prevented them from disclosing the records OPA requested. On February 8, 2005, the court granted a permanent injunction for OPA. The court explained that the DD Act and PAIR Act have identical standards for investigatory authority, that the school fell under the DD Act’s authority because OPA sufficiently demonstrated that Hartford previously served individuals and still serves some individuals with disabilities under the DD Act. Moreover, the court determined that OPA could access Hartford’s premises and records under the PAIMI Act because statutory amendments expanded the Act’s scope to nonresidential settings. Because OPA could conduct PAIMI Act and DD Act investigations, both acts required that OPA receive directory records with the contact information for student’s legal representatives upon their request. The court reasoned that this ensure Hartford could seek consent from legal representatives before submitting individual records requests. Finally, the court said that IDEA and FERPA did not preclude OPA’s records access authority, but that OPA must adhere to IDEA and FERPA confidentiality requirements for these records. On 10/18/06, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed this decision. The case is now closed.

show full summary

Summary Authors

NDRN (11/23/2022)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/2325623/parties/protection-advocacy-for-persons-with-disabilities-v-hartford-bd-of-ed/

Judge(s)

Hall, Janet C. (Connecticut)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Alisberg, Nancy B. (Connecticut)

Annon, Paulette G. (Connecticut)

Attorney for Defendant

Bird, Ann F. (Connecticut)

Rose, John Rose (Connecticut)