University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Bradley v. Arkansas Department of Education ED-AR-0001
Docket / Court 4:96-cv-01004-JMM ( E.D. Ark. )
State/Territory Arkansas
Case Type(s) Education
Case Summary
On December 13, 1996, parents of a student with autism filed this lawsuit on his behalf in the Eastern District Court of Arkansas. The plaintiffs sued the Arkansas Department of Education, the Williford School District, and individuals acting in their official capacities under the Individuals with ... read more >
On December 13, 1996, parents of a student with autism filed this lawsuit on his behalf in the Eastern District Court of Arkansas. The plaintiffs sued the Arkansas Department of Education, the Williford School District, and individuals acting in their official capacities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by public interest attorneys, asked the court for injunctive relief, including compensatory education for the student, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys fees. The plaintiffs claim that the Williford School District failed to implement any method of teaching to assist or promote the disabled students' learning. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the student was not provided with an integrated and appropriate education that would meet state standards.

The plaintiff was diagnosed with autism at age 5, though the claims about his education begin with his enrollment in 7th grade. Plaintiff's parents claim that the school district failed to provide — and the state failed to oversee — an education that benefited the student. He was excluded altogether from Williford classrooms and schools, leaving him isolated from his peers. The plaintiff was only given "home bound" instruction, at a frequency well below the state's standards, and he was deprived of large parts of the high school curriculum. Furthermore, plaintiff's parents claim that the classes their son did take at the school — performance art and drawing — were pursued under their own initiative and required them to forego jobs and other necessities in order to assist the instructors in teaching their son. Additionally, the "home bound" instruction was primarily done on the computer, and required the parents to obtain the materials and teach their son themselves, instead of the district personnel. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants' treatment of the student deprived him of a proper education, and thus placed them in violation of the IDEA, ADA, and Section 504.

In a case proceeding the one at hand, the family complained to the Arkansas Department of Education about the student's education in an IDEA hearing. The family then complained to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) for a failure of due process. The DOE found that the Arkansas Department of Education delayed 3 of its 5 hearing decisions, ruling well beyond the 45 day limit.

On November 21, 1997, Judge Moody granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, but stayed the proceedings pending the 8th Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling on whether the 11th Amendment barred a federal court from having jurisdiction over an IDEA claim. The 8th Circuit held that Arkansas had waived its 11th Amendment immunity with respect to the IDEA claims by participating in the federal spending program, and the case was remanded to the district court. In December 1997 the plaintiff filed a cross-appeal, but the 8th Circuit dismissed his claim in September the following year.

In November 2000 this case was consolidated with Jim C. v. Arkansas Department of Education with this as the leading case. After an initial denial, Judge Moody granted class action certification for school-age children with disabilities and their parents and guardians in September 2001.

On September 18, 2001, both defendants were denied summary judgement. Defendants appealed. On November 4, 2002, The 8th Circuit held that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden under Section 504, failing to show that school officials acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment. Furthermore because the plaintiffs failed to ask for appropriate remedy under § 1983 and IDEA, the state officials were entitled to immunity. The 8th Circuit reversed Judge Moody's decision and remanded for further proceedings. On May 12, 2003, Judge Moody dismissed all claims for money damages against individual defendants.

Following a trial, Judge Moody found that neither the state nor Williford School District violated the federal statutes. He held that the school district had developed a reasonable program to educate the plaintiff, and that, under the totality of the circumstances, had not created a hostile educational environment. On September 10, 2004, Judge Moody issued a judgement for the defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice. A subsequent appeal to the 8th circuit ultimately affirmed the judgement in May 2006.

Carolyn Weltman - 03/13/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Defendant-type
Elementary/Secondary School
Disability
Mental impairment
General
Failure to supervise
Individualized planning
Special education
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Medical/Mental Health
Intellectual/Developmental Disability
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Arkansas Department of Education
Williford School District
Plaintiff Description A student with autism and his parents and next friends.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2006
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing ED-AR-0002 : Jim C. v. Arkansas Department of Education (E.D. Ark.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Courts and Kids: Pursuing Educational Equity Through the State Courts
By: Michael Rebell (Columbia University, and Campaign for Educational Equity)
Citation: (University of Chicago Press, 2009)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
4:00-cv-00747-JMM (E.D. Ark.) 08/11/2006
ED-AR-0001-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 10/13/1999 (189 F.3d 745)
ED-AR-0001-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Complaint-Class Action 10/12/2000 (2000 WL 34542950)
ED-AR-0001-0001.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Order 09/27/2001 (E.D. Ark.)
ED-AR-0001-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 08/30/2002 (301 F.3d 952)
ED-AR-0001-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 05/09/2003 (E.D. Ark.)
ED-AR-0001-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judgment 09/09/2004 (E.D. Ark.)
ED-AR-0001-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 09/13/2004
ED-AR-0001-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 04/07/2006 (443 F.3d 965)
ED-AR-0001-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Bowman, Pasco Middleton II (Eighth Circuit)
ED-AR-0001-0002 | ED-AR-0001-0004 | ED-AR-0001-0008
Moody, James Maxwell (E.D. Ark.)
ED-AR-0001-0003 | ED-AR-0001-0005 | ED-AR-0001-0006 | ED-AR-0001-0007 | ED-AR-0001-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Churchill, Michael (Pennsylvania)
ED-AR-0001-9000
Gilhool, Thomas K. (Pennsylvania)
ED-AR-0001-0001 | ED-AR-0001-9000
Lapertosa, Max (Pennsylvania)
ED-AR-0001-9000
Sutter, Luther Oneal (Arkansas)
ED-AR-0001-0001 | ED-AR-0001-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Robinson, Sherri L. (Arkansas)
ED-AR-0001-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -