Preschool Operator Must Face Simultaneous Federal, State ADA Suits
A preschool operator that had been accused by the DOJ of violating the ADA has lost a motion to dismiss or stay its case.
October 20, 2017 at 04:32 PM
10 minute read
Photo by Sergey Novikov/Shutterstock.com
A preschool operator that had been accused by the U.S. Department of Justice of violating the Americans With Disabilities Act has lost a motion to dismiss or stay its case.
Nobel Learning Communities, which runs as part of its Chesterbrook Academy schools a preschool in Moorestown, New Jersey, allegedly expelled a 3-year-old with Down syndrome in April 2016 because she was not toilet-trained. After her third birthday, company policy dictated that the child, M.M., be moved into a class with older students who were toilet-trained, according to court documents. But her parents gave the school a note from M.M.'s pediatrician, saying that the child would not be toilet-trained until age 5 or later because of her Down syndrome. The state Division of Civil Rights sued the school over the incident in October 2016, and the Department of Justice filed a separate suit in January of this year.
U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman. Photo by Diego M. RadzinschiNobel moved in March to stay the federal case pending resolution of the state case, or to dismiss the federal suit's claims for injunctive relief and for compensatory damages for the child's parents. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman of the District of New Jersey denied both motions, finding that the federal and state suits aren't parallel proceedings. The plaintiff in the federal case is the United States, while the plaintiff in the state case is Craig Sashihara, director of the state Division on Civil Rights, Hillman noted. The federal case was filed on behalf of the United States of America, not on behalf of M.M. or her parents, Hillman said. Furthermore, the federal case is brought under the ADA while the state case is brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, he said.
Nobel also sought to dismiss the DOJ's associational discrimination claims on behalf of M.M.'s parents on collateral estoppel grounds, citing rulings from 2009 and 2011 in a separate case brought against it by the Department of Justice in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In that case, where the DOJ accused West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Nobel of discriminating against disabled children, the Eastern District granted a motion to dismiss claims for associational discrimination suffered by families of disabled children, finding in 2009 that the ADA did not allow a family to recover for indirect consequences of a child's exclusion from Nobel's school. And in 2010, when the DOJ sought to amend its complaint to include new factual allegations about the parents, the Eastern District denied the motion, finding that an amended complaint would be futile.
The Department of Justice argued that collateral estoppel did not apply because the 2009 and 2010 decisions were not firm enough to have preclusive effect. Hillman agreed, finding that the rulings in question were not final judgments. “Standing alone, they are not sufficiently firm to allow for collateral estoppel,” Hillman said.
The government also asserted that its settlement in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case expressly allowed the government to bring subsequent ADA suits against Nobel. Hillman found that a two-year moratorium on suits against Nobel in the 2011 settlement had run out.
Nobel operates 180 schools in 19 states. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania suit was not the first time it was sued for disability discrimination. In 2006 the Division on Civil Rights sued it for failing to enroll a child with spina bifida at its Chesterbrook Academy location in Glassboro, according to the state's complaint in the M.M. case. That suit was settled with an agreement calling for employees to undergo training on accommodation of disabilities. And in 2009 the Department of Justice sued Nobel in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for refusing to enroll children with disabilities, including Down syndrome, from its schools in 15 states.
The DOJ and Nobel reached a settlement agreement in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case in January 2011, proving that the school would enact a nondiscrimination policy, provide training to staff and pay $215,000 to the individual plaintiffs.
Hillman also denied Nobel's motion to dismiss the associational discrimination claim on its own merits. The judge accepted Nobel's assertion that the parents must suffer a separate, cognizable injury but he said the loss of day care services is as much of an injury to the parent as it is to the child.
The government was represented in the case by assistant U.S. attorneys Jordan Anger and David Simunovich. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, Matt Reilly, said the office would not comment on the ruling.
Bonnie Hoffman of Hangley, Aronchick, Segal, Pudlin & Schiller in Philadelphia, who represented Nobel, did not return a call about the case.
Photo by Sergey Novikov/Shutterstock.com
A preschool operator that had been accused by the U.S. Department of Justice of violating the Americans With Disabilities Act has lost a motion to dismiss or stay its case.
Nobel Learning Communities, which runs as part of its Chesterbrook Academy schools a preschool in Moorestown, New Jersey, allegedly expelled a 3-year-old with Down syndrome in April 2016 because she was not toilet-trained. After her third birthday, company policy dictated that the child, M.M., be moved into a class with older students who were toilet-trained, according to court documents. But her parents gave the school a note from M.M.'s pediatrician, saying that the child would not be toilet-trained until age 5 or later because of her Down syndrome. The state Division of Civil Rights sued the school over the incident in October 2016, and the Department of Justice filed a separate suit in January of this year.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute readConstruction Worker Hit by Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
4 minute readEagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
2 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250