A mother of an autistic boy accused the Monroe School District of mistreatment and discrimination. However, the school predominated in a federal lawsuit in U.S. District on March 22 in Seattle. The mother also alleged the school staff for failing to implement her son's IEP or the individual education program and for punishing her son because of his behavior resulting from his autism.
The Allegations
Monroe Monitor and Valley News report that the mother filed the lawsuit last December 2014. The lawsuit charged the district for violation against the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and for breach of the boy's rights on free public education.
Parent Center Hub reports the rule of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1993. Noting that people with disabilities should not be discriminated from any other program, the bill intends to protect the rights of those with disabilities.
"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States," the section begins. "[...] 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."
The lawsuit was addressed to the Monroe School Board, school board members and five school employees who have been accused of mistreating and discriminating the boy.
The Trial
The trial started on March 14 and lasted approximately five days, with only 12 hours of testimony. The jury had their deliberation on March 21, whereas the verdict was released on March 22. The school district, school board and the school five employees were pleaded not guilty.
"Those allegations have been proven completely meritless through the legal process of the due process hearing, summary judgment motions filed with the federal court and a week-long federal jury trial," said the legal counsel of Monroe School District.
Meanwhile, the mother filed a motion for an order divesting the jury verdict and judgment and for a new trial. It is stated, "Because the verdict is contrary to the evidence and based on incomplete jury instructions, it must be vacated and a new trial ordered."