FCPS Complaint

Case 1:19-cv-01285 Document 1 Filed 10/08/19 Page 1 of 56 PageID# 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGNIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
Q.T.,
a minor, by and through next friend Jennifer Tidd,
A.O.,
a minor, by and through next friend Pamela Ononiwu, Civil Action No.: 1:19-cv-1285
D.O.,
a minor, by and through next friend Pamela Ononiwu,
C.T.,
a minor, by and through next friend Ashley Thomas,
COUNCIL OF PARENT ATTORNEYS AND

ADVOCATES,
AUTISTIC SELF ADVOCACY NETWORK, and
COMMUNICATION FIRST,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
DR. SCOTT BRABAND,

SUPERINTENDENT
(in his official capacity), and
TERESA JOHNSON,
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT,
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL SERVICES
(in her official capacity),
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Individual Plaintiffs, Q.T., a minor, by and through next friend Jennifer Tidd, A.O., a
minor, by and through next friend Pamela Ononiwu, D.O., a minor, by and through next friend
Pamela Ononiwu, and C.T., a minor, by and through next friend Ashley Thomas, and
Organizational Plaintiffs, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (“COPAA”), Autistic Self
Advocacy Network (“ASAN”), and Communication First (collectively “Plaintiffs”), allege the
following against Defendants Fairfax County School Board (“FCSB” or the “Board”), Dr. Scott
Brabrand, Fairfax County Public Schools (“FCPS”) Superintendent, and Teresa Johnson, FCPS
Assistant Superintendent, Department of Special Services:
SUMMARY
1. Plaintiffs are students with disabilities and organizations comprised, in part, by
parents of children with disabilities who bring this action to address practices and procedures
illegally employed by Defendants against the most vulnerable wards in their charge. Using highly
discredited techniques, Defendants improperly and repeatedly physically restrained and secluded
the Individual Plaintiffs and the members of the Organizational Plaintiffs on hundreds, if not
thousands, of occasions.
2. Plaintiffs bring this action to hold Defendants accountable for the excessive and
unjustified discrimination, psychological trauma, and physical harm inflicted by their illicit use of
restraints and seclusion to silence, detain, segregate, and punish students with disabilities.
Plaintiffs seek relief under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§
12131, et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 794,
et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution.
3. Defendants’ deployment of techniques more in tune with incarcerated prisoners
than students with disabilities is not only egregious standing alone, but even more deplorable
because Defendants’ actions violate state and federal law, Defendants’ own stated guidelines, and
evidence-based practices on how to address students with disabilities.

2

4. Ignoring the law as it pertains to disabilities enshrined in the ADA and Section 504,
Defendants have treated students with disabilities as if they were incarcerees. Defendants have
not bothered to document their use of physical restraint and isolation as is required and have misled
parents and federal oversight agencies about their use of such methods. Defendants, who represent
a major school district in the prosperous suburbs of our nation’s capital, have simply ignored their
fundamental and sacred duties as educators. Through their failure or refusal to implement well
recognized training and long established positive behavioral intervention techniques, Defendants
have placed their staff, teachers, and students at risk of physical harm and legal liability, out of
intentional disregard for the rights of students with disabilities.
5. As detailed below, Defendants have unlawfully deployed the most restrictive forms
of punishment on children whose disabilities render them often unable to communicate their needs
and the harm inflicted upon them. These children often act out their despair, pain, and isolation,
through behavior that, in a vicious cycle, Defendants use as a basis to subject them to still further
punishment.
6. The parents of these students with disabilities have been excluded from any serious
participation or notice about the actions taken against their children by Defendants. Since the
public school system is the legally mandated refuge of children with disabilities, it is cruel and
violative of the public trust that a public school would choose to simply ignore its duties and hide
its own conduct, leaving parents incapable of gathering the necessary information to protect their
children with disabilities.
7. Physical restraints are so ineffective, dangerous, and traumatizing that many states
specifically outlaw the practices or substantially circumscribe their application to a narrow range
of circumstances. In contrast, Defendants have applied these practices as a routine response to
3

disability-related needs or, worse, as punishment, resulting in violations of the civil and
constitutional rights of students with disabilities.
8. As detailed further below, Defendants have failed to document or limit the use of
restraint and seclusion and have failed to provide sufficient and effective alternative services and
other reasonable accommodations to address disability-related needs. Rather than assess uses of
restraint and seclusion, train staff, make reasonable modifications to their programs to address
students’ disability-related needs, and hold staff accountable for misusing these dangerous
techniques, Defendants have consistently failed even to bother to collect and review data on the
use of restraint and seclusion. Instead, they have allowed their untrained staff to respond to
students with disabilities with no, or limited, training and guidance, forcing staff to assume
knowledge and responsibilities for responding to children with disabilities that they profoundly
lack.
9. As a result, there has been a reflexive use of restraint and seclusion because staff
are not educated on how to address the disability-related need itself. Defendants have also
excluded parents of children with disabilities by withholding information about the mistreatment
of their children at school and misrepresenting the frequency and breadth of their use of restraint
and seclusion to the community and the Federal government. Defendants have refused to engage
in a productive dialogue that allows parents to protect their children or provide insight as to how
to address the needs of those children.
10. Defendants promise to provide “a responsive, caring, and inclusive culture where
all feel valued, supported, and hopeful.”1 In reality, they have delivered the exact opposite by

1
Fairfax Cty. Pub. Schs., Strategic Plan Goal 2: Caring Culture, https://www.fcps.edu/about-
fcps/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-goal-2-caring-culture (last visited Oct. 7, 2019).
4

demeaning, excluding, restraining, and punishing students with disabilities, harkening back to
anachronistic concepts that students with disabilities have no place in schools and should be
shunned. Imposing physical restraints and seclusion that, in other contexts, would constitute
assault or imprisonment, cannot be rationally or legally defensible.
11. Defendants have responded to disability-related needs with exceedingly harsh,
careless, and ineffective restraint and seclusion techniques without justification. Defendants have
failed to use positive interventions that are proven to be more effective at deescalating behaviors
and providing students with disabilities with services designed to respond to negative or
challenging disability-related needs in the most integrated setting appropriate.
12. By relying on excessive and unnecessary restraint and seclusion in response to
students with disabilities and by doing so without considering or applying more effective
integrated approaches, Defendants have repeatedly violated federal law and their own guidelines
on use of restraint and seclusion, thereby systematically discriminating against students with
disabilities and engaging in unconstitutional seizures.
13. Defendants have treated students with disabilities differently than they treat
students without disabilities. When students with disabilities express different opinions,
disagreement, or attempt to exercise agency in a manner that contravenes the expectations of FCPS
staff, they are regularly restrained and removed from the classroom setting and placed in isolation
cells. This suit demands that students with disabilities be granted the same rights as nondisabled
students to schools that are safe places that provide them educational opportunity and instill in
them a sense of belonging and esteem. Instead, Defendants’ actions display a woeful disregard
for these student’s basic rights, and they need to be stopped because they are illegal,
counterproductive, harmful, and ineffective.
5

14. Defendants do not impose similar disciplinary responses to students without
disabilities across the district. Indeed, Defendants have applied harsher discipline against students
with disabilities than for those without disabilities who engage in similar conduct.
15. Defendants have knowingly failed to train, oversee, and hold accountable their
employees for imposing physical and psychological punishments meted out to students with
disabilities even when their employees recklessly depart from federal law and FCPS guidelines.
16. Likewise, Defendants have perpetuated policies, practices, procedures, and criteria
that have the effect of discriminating against such students with disabilities on the basis of
disability. In particular, Defendants have perpetuated a system that places an unnecessary reliance
on and investment in seclusion rooms, SROs, and untrained teachers and staff in lieu of more
integrated and effective systems and techniques, and that routinely fails to conduct appropriate
assessments and implement appropriate planning and training to avoid the use of restraint and
seclusion altogether.
17. Defendants’ abuses are directly and proximately caused by their knowing failure to
plan, fund, and administer a system designed to respond to disability-related needs through
effective means including:
a. ensuring all students with disabilities are provided with basic reasonable
accommodations to address their disability-related support needs throughout the
day;
b. strictly limiting use of restraint and seclusion on students with disabilities;
c. appropriate training and oversight of school district staff;
d. providing functional behavioral assessments (“FBAs”), behavioral intervention
plans (“BIPs”), Multi-tiered System of Supports (“MTSS”), and Positive
6

Behavioral Intervention and Supports (“PBIS”), including trauma informed
practices, positive educational and preventive practices and services to respond to
students’ disability-related needs without restraint and seclusion;
e. providing sufficient qualified staff to implement positive behavioral support
techniques;
f. instituting effective and appropriate data collection and reporting on the use of
restraint and seclusion (e.g., the number of incidents, the circumstances, and the
duration) and the implementation of alternative techniques; and
g. monitoring restraint and seclusion incidents across FCPS to ensure they are
utilized only when appropriate.
18. The lack of transparency and accountability associated with Defendants’ restraint
and seclusion system has chilled the rights of students and parents by depriving them of notice of
the discrimination. For example, Defendants have relied on incomplete and unreliable data
collection, where it exists, typically generated after improper instances of restraint and seclusion
occur, rather than a proactive monitoring of such practices. Then, in the rare instances where such
information is actually provided to parents, it is often sent long after the instance of unlawful
restraint or seclusion. Defendants have all but admitted that they failed to create a system of
accountability to ensure that the most vulnerable of students are protected, infringing upon students
with disabilities constitutional rights and denying them due process. Indeed, even as this lawsuit
is filed, Defendants continue to dither and formed an advisory Task Force purporting to address
the conduct at issue, which is nothing more than a public relations ploy, if not an acknowledgement
and admission of misconduct.
7

19. Defendants’ restraint and seclusion practices have substantially impaired the ability
of students with disabilities to achieve their educational objectives. There is no pedagogical
purpose for Defendants’ actions.
20. Defendants also have subjected students with disabilities to unjustified segregation
by unnecessarily removing them from the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs and
isolating them in seclusion without cause.
21. Moreover, often instances of restraint and seclusion have occurred across FCPS
when such techniques could have been avoided altogether had Defendants provided basic and
reasonable modifications required by the ADA and Section 504.
22. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs children and their members have
suffered significant injuries and trauma, have been segregated from their peers, and have been
denied valuable learning time.
23. Despite receiving national media attention as early as March 2019, Defendants have
done little, if anything, to address its misuse of restraint and seclusion on students with disabilities,
other than creating a school-sponsored Task Force.
24. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, Plaintiffs assert their right to relief
jointly and severally, or in the alternative, arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, namely
Defendants’ systemic use of unlawful and unjustified restraint and seclusion practices in Fairfax
County. Plaintiffs share questions of law and fact in common.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1331 and 1343.
8

26. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial
part of the events, acts, or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims have occurred in Fairfax
County, Virginia and FCSB maintains its principal place of business in Fairfax County, Virginia.
27. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and systemic relief, as well as damages, under the ADA,
Section 504, Section 1983, and the U.S. Constitution, and such relief cannot be provided using the
administrative procedures authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”).
Plaintiffs do not seek relief related to any failure to provide them with a free appropriate public
education (“FAPE”). Therefore, any effort to exhaust claims through the administrative process is
unnecessary and/or futile, and the Virginia State Department of Education, Division of Special
Education Services, Office of Dispute Resolution and Administrative Services responsible for
hearing Section 504 matters lacks jurisdiction to correct and hear these wrongs under the ADA,
Section 504, and Section 1983 and cannot award appropriate relief, including monetary damages.
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
28. Q.T., a minor, files suit through his next friend, Jennifer Tidd. Ms. Tidd and Q.T.
reside in Fairfax County, Virginia. Q.T. is a minor child who attended FCPS until he was moved
into a private contract facility at FCPS’ insistence and cost. Q.T. has autism and is non-verbal,
which substantially limits the major life activities of learning and communication. He is a child
with a disability under the ADA and Section 504.
29. A.O., a minor, files suit through her next friend, Pamela Ononiwu. Ms. Ononiwu
and A.O. reside in Fairfax County, Virginia. A.O. has been diagnosed with an emotional disability
that limits the major life activity of learning. She is a child with a disability under the ADA and
Section 504.
9

30. D.O., a minor, files suit through his next friend, Pamela Ononiwu. Ms. Ononiwu
and D.O. reside in Fairfax County, Virginia. D.O. has been diagnosed with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) and developmental delay. D.O.’s disabilities limit the major life
activity of learning. He is a child with disabilities pursuant to the ADA and Section 504.
31. C.T., a minor, files suit through his next friend, Ashley Thomas. Ms. Thomas and
C.T. reside in Fairfax County, Virginia. C.T. has autism, sensory processing disorder, anxiety,
social and emotional communication delay, and ADHD. C.T.’s disabilities limit the major life
activities of learning and communications, and he is a child with a disability under the ADA and
Section 504.
32. COPAA is a national not-for-profit organization of parents of children with
disabilities, their attorneys, and their advocates. COPAA has members that are residents of
Virginia and of Fairfax County. COPAA’s primary goal is to secure appropriate educational
services for children with disabilities in accordance with federal law. COPAA provides resources,
training, and information for parents, advocates, and attorneys to assist them in obtaining the equal
opportunity for education such children are entitled to under the federal civil rights laws. COPAA
frequently advises and trains parents, attorneys, and advocates about challenging discrimination
by schools against their children, helps parents and advocates file complaints on behalf of children
with disabilities, helps parents and advocates find attorneys and legal resources as they advocate
for their children’s legal rights, educates policy makers, including school districts and federal
agencies, about the educational experiences of students with disabilities and their families, and
educates COPAA members about developments in the federal civil rights laws and policies
affecting the education of students with disabilities.
10

33. ASAN is a member organization run by and for autistic people. It seeks to advance
the principles of the disability rights movement with regard to autism. ASAN works to empower
autistic people across the world and advocates for systems change and ensure that the voices of
autistic people are heard in various forums. ASAN staff work to advance the civil rights of people
with disabilities, to support self-advocacy in all forms, and to improve public perceptions of
autism. ASAN’s members and supporters include autistic adults and youth, cross-disability
advocates, and non-autistic family members, professionals, educators, and friends. ASAN has
individual members who are residents of Virginia and Fairfax County. In recognition of the trauma
that restraint and seclusion in schools causes its members and the autistic community as a whole,
ASAN has devoted a significant amount of staff time to advocacy against restraint and seclusion
over the past several years.
34. Communication First is a national not-for-profit organization dedicated to
educating the public, advocating for policy reform, and engaging the judicial system to advance
the rights, autonomy, opportunity, and dignity of people with speech-related communication
disabilities and conditions, including but not limited to, students with speech-related
communication disabilities.
Defendants
35. The Board is the governing body of FCPS, a school division of the Commonwealth
of Virginia. The Board directs, controls, and supervises the operation and administration of all
schools, programs, and activities within FCPS and is organized under the laws of Virginia. Va.
Code Ann. § 22.1-71. FCPS is the tenth largest school system in the country. The Board receives
federal financial assistance and is a public entity as defined in Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§
12131, et seq., and Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794. FCPS serves over 187,000 students each year.
11

In the 2019–2020 school year, FCPS’ approved budget for the school operating fund totaled $2.9
billion. FCPS has a staff of over 24,000.
36. Dr. Scott Brabrand is the FCPS Superintendent. He was elected by the Board and
appointed on June 8, 2017. Dr. Brabrand is responsible for working in conjunction with the Board
and for overseeing the daily operations of FCPS, including overseeing its student disciplinary
process, allocation of resources, training of employees, and methods of data collection.
37. Teresa Johnson is the Assistant Superintendent for the FCPS Department of Special
Services. Ms. Johnson is charged with providing a planned program of instructional,
psychological, social, and related services to help schools meet the needs of students with
disabilities. She is responsible for overseeing FCPS’ Offices of Intervention and Prevention
Services, Operations and Strategic Planning, Special Education Instruction, and Special Education
Procedural Support. In that role, Ms. Johnson is directly responsible for ensuring appropriate
training for FCPS employees working with students with disabilities and for establishing
appropriate systems to monitor and notify parents of incidences of restraint and seclusion, as well
as reporting incidences of restraint and seclusion to the Federal government.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Discriminatory and dangerous effects of restraint and seclusion on students with

disabilities in public schools
38. The U.S. Department of Education (“U.S. DOE”) Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”)
defines restraint and seclusion as follows:
12

a. Physical restraint is a “personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces the
ability of a student to move his or her torso, arms, legs, or head freely.” 2 “The
term physical restraint does not include a physical escort. Physical escort means
a temporary touching or holding of the hand, wrist, arm, shoulder, or back for
the purpose of inducing a student who is acting out to walk to a safe location.”
Resource Document at 10.
b. Seclusion is “[t]he involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room or area
from which the student is physically prevented from leaving.” Id. It does not
include a timeout, which is a behavior management technique that is part of an
approved program, involves the monitored separation of the student in a non-
locked setting, and is implemented for the purpose of calming.” Id.
39. Since at least 2009, the U.S. DOE has recognized the dangers of restraint and
seclusion of students and the discriminatory impact of schools’ use of restraint and seclusion.3 The
Secretary of Education wrote that he was “deeply troubled” by testimony provided during a
hearing before the Education and Labor Committee in the United States House of Representatives
about the use and effects of restraint and seclusion in schools across the country. Duncan Policy
Letter.
40. During that testimony, Senior Republican Member Howard McKeon stated, “All
students, but especially those with disabilities, have the right to attend a school that is a safe and

2
U.S. Dep’t of Ed., Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 10 (May 2012),
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/seclusion/restraints-and-seclusion-resources.pdf [hereinafter
Resource Document).
3
Arne Duncan, Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary (July
31, 2009), https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/090731.html [hereinafter Duncan
Policy Letter].
13

rich learning environment.”4 He went on to state that “[e]ven in cases where students with
disabilities have serious discipline problems and may be a threat to themselves, it is important that
teachers and classroom aides use interventions and supports that are both physically and
emotionally safe for the child.” House Testimony at 5–6.
41. In response to the testimony provided to the Education and Labor Committee, the
U.S. DOE Secretary urged schools across the country to “develop or review and, if appropriate,
revise . . . State policies and guidelines to ensure that every student in every school . . . is safe and
protected from being unnecessarily or inappropriately restrained or secluded.” Duncan Policy
Letter.
42. Consistent with the guidance provided by the U.S. DOE, in September 2009, the
Virginia Department of Education (“VDOE”) developed its own guidelines to “provide assistance
to school divisions and public school programs in Virginia regarding the writing of policies and
procedures for physical restraint and seclusion of students in emergency situations.”5 The 2009
Guidelines are “pertinent to the management of all children’s violent behavior in emergency
situations in Virginia’s public schools.” 2009 Guidelines at 1.
43. The VDOE 2009 Guidelines provide in pertinent part:
a. Every child shall be “treated with respect and dignity,” that the “learning
environment [be] safe for all students and staff,” and “[w]here possible, less

4
Examining the Abusive and Deadly Use of Seclusion and Restraint in Schools: Hearing before
the House Comm on Educ. and Labor, 111th Cong. 19, 5 (May 19, 2009),
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg49597/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg49597.pdf
[hereinafter House Testimony].
5
Va. Dep’t of Educ., Guidelines for the Development of Policies and Procedures for Managing
Student Behaviors in Emergency Situations in Virginia Public Schools Focusing on Physical
Restraint and Seclusion 1 (Sept. 2009),
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/student_conduct/guidelines_managing_behaviors_emergen
cy.pdf (footnote omitted) [hereinafter 2009 Guidelines].
14

restrictive measures should be used initially and no intervention should
remove a student from the learning environment for unreasonable or
unnecessary periods[,]” id. at 4 (emphasis in original);
b. “When the behaviors have been addressed, returning the student to the learning
environment is paramount[,]” id.;
c. “School divisions must ensure that any action taken does not violate constitutional
protections, especially in terms of an individual’s due process rights, and that
policies contain assurances of students’ rights[,]” id. at 6;
d. All school systems must consider “[a]ll federal and state statutes, and any
implementing regulations” when creating their own “requirements for using
physical restraint and seclusion,” and specifically sections 22.1-276, et seq., of the
“Code of Virginia relative to discipline in and by regulations set forth by the Board
of Education in 8VAC20-81-10 relative to students with disabilities[,]” id.; and
e. “Neither the statutes nor the regulations authorize the use of any abusive
techniques or interventions with students in Virginia’s public schools.” Id.
44. To ensure proper implementation of its policy and to detect uses of restraint and
seclusion, the 2009 Guidelines provide that each incident of restraint and/or seclusion should be
memorialized and documented to include the following:
a. “the circumstances under which physical restraint or seclusion occurred,” id. at
17;
b. “a description of the incident, including the date, time, location of incident,
persons involved partially and fully, and other relevant details,” id.;
15

c. “a justification statement setting forth why physical restraint, seclusion, or other
behavioral interventions were necessary,” id.;
d. “a substantial explanation why less intrusive interventions were deemed
inappropriate or inadequate,” id.; and
e. “a comprehensive list of persons who must be informed or notified of the
incident.” Id.
45. Moreover, the 2009 Guidelines require schools to, at a minimum, create a reporting
process that include:
a. “the procedures for informing school/program administration,” id. at 18;
b. “the procedures for informing parents,” id.; and
c. “the procedures for transmitting the report to a review committee where a
determination would be made on whether the school division’s policies and
procedures have been followed.” Id.
46. Regarding investigating injuries sustained by students and other complaints, the
2009 Guidelines state: “It is essential that all injuries, incidents, accidents, or other related
activities be fully documented at the time they occur,” and that “[i]n any complaint process, it is
essential that all parties involved be identified, the time of actions be recorded fully, the events
and behaviors preceding the incident be investigated, and any other relevant data or evidence be
documented.” Id.
47. Relating to training, the 2009 Guidelines provide that all staff be trained on “the
use of behavior management techniques, physical restraint, and seclusion in emergency
situations.” Id. at 15. Moreover, school divisions “should ensure that everyone concerned has
information on these interventions and should decide who needs to receive specific training.” Id.
16

48. The 2009 Guidelines also provide minimum training requirements including, inter
alia:
a. “interventions and alternatives that may preclude the need for physical restraint
and seclusion (e.g., de-escalation of problematic behavior),” id.;
b. “administering physical restraint and implementing seclusion procedures in
accordance with established medical or psychological limitations and when
applicable, as specified in a student’s Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP),” id. at
16; and
c. “procedures to be followed when documenting and reporting incidents of physical
restraint or seclusion to parents and school administration.” Id.
49. The 2009 Guidelines allowed a school system to “choose to use this information at
its discretion in developing procedures that will help in situations involving the management of
challenging student behaviors.” Id. at 1.
50. Further, the 2009 Guidelines are in effect an established standard of care that can
be referenced when determining the appropriateness of a school system’s actions.
51. In May 2012, the U.S. Secretary of Education issued additional guidance directing
schools to review their policies on restraint and seclusion, develop or revise policies and
guidelines, and publicize those policies “so that administrators, teachers, and parents [could]
understand and consent to the limited circumstances under which these techniques may be used[.]”
Resource Document at 5.
52. It has been widely recognized that restraint and seclusion of students, and
particularly of students with disabilities, can be harmful and discriminatory, and that it should be
limited to those situations in which the student’s “behavior poses imminent danger of serious
17

physical harm to self or others and other interventions are ineffective and should be discontinued
as soon as imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others has dissipated.” Id. at iii.
53. The Resource Document explained that school districts should:
a. “ensure that parents are notified when” restraint and seclusion is used, id. at 5;
b. “provide the resources needed to successfully implement” appropriate policies
limiting the use of restraint and seclusion, id.; and
c. implement PBIS as a “important preventive approach that can increase the
capacity of the school staff to support children with the most complex behavioral
needs, thus reducing the instances that require intensive interventions.” Id. at 5.
See also id. at 3.
54. Starting in the 2009–2010 school year, the U.S. DOE OCR required “reporting of
the total number of students subjected to restraint or seclusion disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex,
limited English proficiency status, and disability, and to collect the total number of times that
restraint or seclusion occurred.” Id. at 5.
55. The Resource Document outlines Fifteen Principles that States, local school
districts, and other stakeholders should consider as the framework for developing policies and
procedures on restraint and seclusion “to ensure that any use of restraint or seclusion in schools
does not occur, except when there is a threat of imminent danger of serious physical harm to the
student or others, and occurs in a manner that protects the safety of all children and adults at
school.” Id. at 6.
56. In December 2016, the U.S. DOE Assistant Secretary clarified in a “Dear
Colleague” letter that there are “limits that Federal civil rights laws [such as the ADA and Section
18

504] impose on the use of restraint and seclusion by public elementary and secondary school
districts.”6
57. According to the U.S. DOE OCR:
A school district discriminates on the basis of disability in its use of restraint

or seclusion by (1) unnecessarily treating students with disabilities
differently from students without disabilities; (2) implementing policies,
practices, procedures, or criteria that have an effect of discriminating
against students on the basis of disability or defeating or substantially
impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the school district's program
or activity with respect to students with disabilities; or (3) denying the right
to a free appropriate public education . . . .
2016 Dear Colleague Letter at 3.
58. One section of the 2016 Dear Colleague Letter outlines the Legal Standards OCR
uses to determine whether the use of restraint or seclusion has violated Section 504 and Title II.
This section provides, in pertinent part:
a. Restraint and seclusion is only justified in instances where a “student’s behavior
poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others,” and would
not “find the repeated use of restraint and seclusion to be a justified response
where alternative methods also could prevent imminent danger to self or others,”
id. at 9 (emphasis added);
b. A school district is required to provide special education or related services
“[w]hen a school district suspects a student may have a disability because of social,
emotional, or behavioral needs,” id. at 10;

6
Catherine E. Lhamon, Dear Colleague Letter: Restraint and Seclusion of Students with
Disabilities, U.S. Dep’t of Educ. Off. for Civil Rights, 1 (Dec. 28, 2016)
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201612-504-restraint-seclusion-
ps.pdf [hereinafter 2016 Dear Colleague Letter].
19

c. To address those needs, “the evaluation and placement process must draw upon
information from a variety of sources and include an assessment of the student’s
social, emotional, or behavioral needs to address the identified concerns,” id.
(footnote omitted); and
d. “[W]hen a school district has reason to believe that the student’s educational needs
are not being met, it must consider different or additional approaches or services
to address the student’s behavioral needs,” including, if necessary “reevaluat[ing]
the student, which could include evaluating the need for positive behavioral
interventions and supports and other strategies to address the student’s behavior
that could mitigate or eliminate the need for restraint and seclusion.” Id. at 11
(footnotes omitted).
59. The 2016 Dear Colleague Letter explains that evidence of unlawful discrimination
on the basis of disability can be discerned from any available data as well as the school district’s
policies, practices, procedures, and criteria relating to restraint and seclusion. Id. at 3.
60. Data collected by the Federal government has shown that in the 2015–16 school
year, although students with disabilities made up only 12% of all students enrolled in public
schools across the country, they were nevertheless the subject of 7l% of incidences of restraint and
66% of incidences of seclusion.7 Another study from 2001 revealed that seclusion “may cause
additional trauma and harm,” and “the practice of seclusion does not add to therapeutic goals and
is in fact a method to control the environment instead of a therapeutic intervention.”8

7
U.S. Dep’t of Ed. Off. for Civ. Rights, 2015–16 Civil Rights Data Collection School Climate and
Safety 12 (May 2019), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/school-climate-and-
safety.pdf.
8
Linda Finke, The Use of Seclusion is Not an Evidence-Based Practice, 14 J. Child & Adolescent
Psychiatric Nursing 186, 189 (2001).
20

61. The Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (“CCBD”) has highlighted the
traumatic effects restraint and seclusion can have on children. For restraint, CCBD explains that
effects “range from short-term such as fear and an adrenaline rush of physical confrontation to
long-term effects such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”9 Effects relating to seclusion are “the
continuing significant psychological damage and the potential of physical injury and even death .
. . .”10
62. The trauma inflicted upon children from unlawful restraint and seclusion has been
documented by the United States Government and Accountability Office (“U.S. GAO”). In a 2009
report, the U.S. GAO explained that “[e]ven if no physical injury is sustained, . . . individuals can
be severely traumatized during restraint.”11 The results of such trauma can include “hyperactivity,
anxiety, behavioral impulsivity, sleep problems, tachycardia, hypertension, and a variety of
neuroendocrine abnormalities,” causing children to respond to threats in a “‘fight or flight’
reaction.”12

9
The Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders, CCBD’s Position Summary on The Use of
Physical Restraint Procedures in School Settings 5 (July 8, 2009),
https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/SPED/bc40048c-cf24-4380-a493-
273ff305ca3c/UploadedImages/CCBD%20Position%20on%20Use%20of%20Restraint%207-8-
09.pdf.
10
The Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders, CCBD’s Position Summary on The Use of
Seclusion in School Settings 5 (July 8, 2009),
https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/SPED/bc40048c-cf24-4380-a493-
273ff305ca3c/UploadedImages/CCBD%20Position%20on%20Use%20of%20Seclusion%207-8-
09.pdf.
11
U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., Seclusions and Restraints Selected Cases of Death and Abuse
at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centers 1 (May 19, 2009),
https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09719t.pdf.
12
Bruce D. Perry, et al., Childhood Trauma, the Neurobiology of Adaptation, and “Use-
dependent” Development of the Brain: How “States” Become “Traits”, 16 Infant Mental Health
J. 271, 277–78 (1995),
http://media.wix.com/ugd/29cec4_4951bdf3fb444a62b01f2da71e4a4cae.pdf.
21

63. According to OCR, “[a] school’s use of restraint or seclusion may have a traumatic
impact on a student, such that even if she were never again restrained or secluded, she might
nevertheless have new academic or behavioral difficulties . . . That traumatizing effect could
manifest itself in new behaviors, impaired concentration or attention in class, or increased absences
. . . .”13
64. Research shows that restraint and seclusion “destroy the trusting relationship
between students and teachers which is essential to learning and progress,” House Testimony at
83, and that “virtually no evidence to support” the notion that restraint and seclusion can change a
student’s undesired behavior, id. at 21.
65. Restraints and seclusion are less effective than alternative approaches, such as
positive behavioral supports. For example, MTSS provides a framework for educators to identify
students’ behavioral needs. MTSS practices include “collaborative and team-based decision
making to determine” a student’s needs and appropriate interventions, building active involvement
between teachers and parents.14 Safer and less traumatic interventions like MTSS have been
successfully implemented in school systems and are linked to positive outcomes such as greater
academic achievement, fewer disciplinary problems, and decreased injury to school staff.
Defendants have failed to take effective action to comply with the requirements
of federal laws protecting the rights of students with disabilities regarding
restraint and seclusion.
66. In 2012, Defendants finally purported to begin following the federal call to limit
the use of restraint and seclusion by adopting their Guidelines on the Use of Physical Restraint

13
U.S. Dep’t of Ed. Off. for Civ. Rights, Fact Sheet: Restraint and Seclusion of Students with
Disabilities 1 (Dec. 28, 2016), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-factsheet-
201612-504-restraint-seclusion-ps.pdf.
14
PBIS Rewards, What is MTSS, https://www.pbisrewards.com/blog/what-is-mtss/ (last visited
Oct. 7, 2019).
22

and Seclusion for Students with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Services.15 The pertinent
provisions of the FCPS Guidelines provide:
a. “The right to be educated in a safe and supportive climate of success extends to all
students at all times, in all school environments[,]” FCPS Guidelines at 5;
b. “When managing student behavior, physical restraint and seclusion are safety
procedures used when less restrictive alternatives have failed, and the student is
an immediate danger to him or herself and/or others. The use of abusive or aversive
interventions, including corporal punishment, is expressly prohibited,” id.; and
c. “Each principal or program administrator will determine a time and method to
ensure that appropriate staff members, parents, and students are familiar with the
school division’s policies and procedures regarding the use of behavior
management techniques, physical restraint, and seclusion in dangerous situations.”
Id. at 8.
67. As it relates to training, FCPS Guidelines provide that training should include, but
not be limited to:
a. “Methods and procedures for de-escalating and assisting students to self-manage
using non-physical means, as well as certification in research-based physical
management techniques using the least restrictive options to ensure the safety of
all involved,” id.;

15
The 2012 Guidelines were amended in March 2019 but remain substantively unchanged. See
Fairfax Cty. Pub. Schs., Guidelines on the Use of Physical Restraint and Seclusion for Students
with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Services (Mar. 2019),
https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/PhysicalRestraintSeclusion.pdf [hereinafter
FCPS Guidelines].
23

b. “Interventions and alternatives that may preclude the need for physical restraint
and seclusion (e.g., de-escalation of problematic behavior and the conflict cycle),”
id.;
c. “Related safety and medical considerations, including information regarding the
increased risk of injury to the student and/or school personnel when physical
restraint is implemented or a student is secluded,” id.; and
d. “Instruction regarding incident documentation and reporting requirements, and the
procedures for investigating injuries and complaints.” Id.
68. FCPS Guidelines outline measures to be taken when restraint and/or seclusion is
used, including, but not limited to:
a. Prohibiting the use of physical restraint and/or seclusion in the management of
severe student behavior unless there is a dangerous situation and physical restraint
and/or seclusion is necessary to protect the student or another person or persons,
id. at 9, 10;
b. Requiring other less intrusive interventions be used and providing an explanation
for why other interventions were deemed inadequate or inappropriate, id.;
c. Prohibiting physical restraint and/or seclusion from being used as a teaching
procedure or behavioral intervention and prohibiting restraint and/or seclusion as
punishment or to address behaviors that are not dangerous or for non-emergency
reasons, such as noncompliance, disrespect, disobedience, misuse or destruction
of property or disruption, id. at 5, 6, 9, 10;
d. Limiting the use of physical restraint and/or seclusion only for the period of time
that is necessary to contain the behavior of the student, so that the student no longer
24

poses an immediate threat of causing physical injury to self or others, id. at 6, 9,
10;
e. Restricting the use of force in the application of physical restraint and/or seclusion
so that it does not exceed the force that is reasonable and necessary under the
circumstances that precipitated the use of the physical restraint, id. at 9, 10;
f. Requiring staff members to monitor the student for any safety or medical concerns,
including risk of injury, id.;
g. Mandating that each incident of restraint and/or seclusion be documented using
specific FCPS forms, copies of which must be sent home to parents to provide
adequate notification of incidents of restraint and/or seclusion, id. at 9–11, 14–15;
h. Requiring a school administrator or designee to inform the parents or guardians of
the student of the incident requiring the physical restraint or seclusion in writing
and by phone within 24 hours, id. at 9, 11; and
i. Requiring school staff members to comply with all procedures outlined in FCPS
Guidelines involving investigation of complaints and/or corrective measures if
warranted. Id.
69. In 2015, Virginia Code § 22.1-279.1:1, was enacted, providing:
The [VDOE] shall adopt regulations on the use of seclusion and restraint in
public elementary and secondary schools in the Commonwealth that (i) are
consistent with its Guidelines for the Development of Policies and
Procedures for Managing Student Behavior in Emergency Situations
and the Fifteen Principles contained in the U.S. Department of
Education's Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document; (ii) include
definitions, criteria for use, restrictions for use, training requirements,
notification requirements, reporting requirements, and follow-up
requirements; and (iii) address distinctions, including distinctions in
emotional and physical development, between (a) the general student
population and the special education student population and (b) elementary
school students and secondary school students. The Board shall
25

specifically (1) identify and prohibit the use of any method of restraint
or seclusion that it determines poses a significant danger to the student
and (2) establish safety standards for seclusion.
(Emphasis added.)
70. In short, the Fifteen Principles enshrined in the Resource Document became a legal
mandate, not a suggestion.
71. Although VDOE has yet to enact such regulations, Defendants have been aware
that such regulations adopting the Fifteen Principles set forth in the Resource Document are
forthcoming and that Virginia Code § 22.1-279.1:1 already obligates Defendants to follow them.
72. Despite their own guidelines and knowledge of state law, and that state regulations
are being promulgated, Defendants have, for years, violated their own policies, federal law, and
the United States Constitution by improperly restraining and secluding students with disabilities
and subjecting them to unlawful seizures and depriving them of due process and equal protection
in violation of their constitutional rights.
73. Following widespread news reports of abuses involving improper and unreported
restraint and seclusion, FCPS has responded, not by shifting resources to provide PBIS, not by
training teachers or increasing staffing resources, not by adopting policies to restrict and oversee
the use of restraint and seclusion, but by organizing a quasi-governmental Task Force ostensibly
to consider the issue of restraint and seclusion and how to “improve” on school procedures.
74. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ Task Force, created in June 2019 to
advise Dr. Brabrand as to how Defendants can alter their policies surrounding restraint and
seclusion, has produced no public deliverables or deadlines, has no members with backgrounds in
the educational, psychological, or legal standards applicable to policies on restraint and seclusion
and the harm such practices can have on children with disabilities, and relies on a single,
unqualified individual who has no educational or psychiatric background to survey and research
26

uses of restraint and seclusion and provide the Task Force with recommendations for alternatives
to restraint and seclusion.
75. Moreover, the Task Force has not been tasked with considering how to remedy any
harm that has already occurred. The Task Force was closed to the wider public, parents, and
families, including Plaintiffs, until October 2019 and, to date, has produced no public records of
any meeting or comments provided to it. Meanwhile, the unjustified and harmful use of physical
violence and seclusion rooms continues unabated against students with disabilities.
Defendants have systematically subjected children with disabilities to unnecessary restraint

and seclusion and concealed their unlawful actions from parents and the Federal
government.
76. FCPS Guidelines first adopted in 2012 purport to limit the use of physical restraint
and seclusion to instances “when less restrictive alternatives have failed and [when a] student is
an immediate danger to him or herself and/or others.” FCPS Guidelines at 5.
77. Defendants’ own guidelines also require that “no intervention should remove a
student from the learning environment for unreasonable or unnecessary periods of time. When the
behaviors have been addressed, returning the student to the learning environment is important.”
Id.
78. Despite their own guidelines, Defendants have, for years, allowed their employees
and agents to restrain and seclude children with disabilities without requiring them to exhaust the
use of less restrictive measures and accommodations. FCPS has also condoned the repeated use
of restraint and seclusion techniques when student behavior poses no immediate danger.
Defendants have used restraint and seclusion as a common disciplinary method for students with
disabilities, rather than limiting those techniques to emergency situations where no alternative
exists.
27

79. Thus, Defendants have invoked restraint and seclusion as a de facto disciplinary
method for students with disabilities, routinely making unlawful seizures, rather than reserving
restraint and seclusion to rare instances that are emergency in nature.
80. Moreover, Defendants have subjected Individual Plaintiffs to restraint and
seclusion for unnecessarily long periods of time, sometimes day after day, in violation of their
constitutional rights.
81. Upon information and belief, Defendants utilize SROs who are not trained in PBIS,
other de-escalation techniques, or appropriate ways to interact with children with disabilities.
FCPS staff frequently call upon SROs to restrain and seclude children with disabilities.16
82. Defendants have failed to appropriately support alternatives to restraint and
seclusion or train FCPS staff to implement such alternatives, despite having ample resources to do
so. For example, in fiscal year 2019, Defendants allocated just $1.3 million of their $2.9 billion
budget (less than ½ of 1 percent) for their “Positive Behavior Approach” program.17 This program
supports only eight positions dedicated to positive behavioral supports for the entirety of FCPS,
FCPS 2019 Budget at 174, that is, “over 190,000 students across 198 schools and centers[,]” id. at
253. In contrast, during the same year, Defendants dedicated $4.7 million to “Alternative Learning
Centers,” id. at 85, which segregate students with disabilities from the general education
population.18

16
Such officers are law enforcement personnel pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 9.1-101 and are state
actors for federal statutory purposes.
17
Fairfax Cty. Pub. Schs., Fiscal Year 2019 Program Budget, fcps.edu 174 (2019),
https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/FY-2019-Program-Budget_1.pdf [hereinafter
FCPS 2019 Budget].
18
See also Jessica Butler, How Safe is the Schoolhouse? An Analysis of State Seclusion and
Restraint Laws and Policies 4 (July 10, 2019),
http://www.autcom.org/pdf/HowSafeSchoolhouse.pdf (“While Virginia has not adopted
28

83. Recent media reports highlight how Defendants have blatantly disregarded the civil
rights of FCPS students with disabilities and subjected them to unnecessary and unreasonable
restraint and seclusion as a matter of course.19 Defendants have done so without considering more
integrated alternatives and accommodations, or examining whether a student’s actions even came
close to the standard of constituting an immediate danger to self and/or others.
84. For example, one news report revealed that there are hundreds of cases in FCPS
where children as young as six years old were restrained and secluded for actions that did not pose
an imminent threat to self or others. A parent reported that her child who has been diagnosed with
autism was kept in a seclusion room “every day,” that “[h]e basically lived in that room,” and
“each time [Defendants] put him in seclusion, it made him act out more.”20 These seclusion rooms,
“built like Russian nesting dolls,” are used when students with disabilities act out, often
exacerbating the very behaviors that Defendants’ employees and agents should be trying to
address. Isolated.
85. In spite of FCPS Guidelines requiring a “building principal, or designee” to “make
good faith efforts to contact a parent or guardian of the student who has been physically restrained
[or secluded] as soon as is reasonable, but certainly within 24 hours of the time when the restraint

regulations [on restraint and seclusion], its largest district, Fairfax County, allocated $1 million to
prevent the use of restraint and seclusion, after finding it likely that staff were not following
guidelines.”).
19
See, e.g., Matthew Walther, The Torture Chambers Down the Street, theweek.com (Mar. 25,
2019), https://theweek.com/articles/830630/torture-chambers-down-street; Jenny Abamu, This Is
What “Seclusion” Looks like at One Fairfax County School, wamu.org (Mar. 21, 2019),
https://wamu.org/story/19/03/21/video-this-is-what-seclusion-looks-like-at-one-fairfax-county-
school/.
20
Jenny Abamu, Children are Routinely Isolated in Some Fairfax County Schools. The District
Didn’t Report It, wamu.org (Mar. 13, 2019), https://wamu.org/story/19/03/13/children-are-
routinely-isolated-in-some-fairfax-county-schools-the-district-didnt-report-it/ [hereinafter
Isolated].
29

[or seclusion] occurred,” FCPS Guidelines at 9, 11, Plaintiffs and other parents have routinely
been denied notification from FCPS of incidents of restraint and seclusion against their children.
86. Upon information and belief, Defendants use terms such as “quiet rooms,”
“resource suites,” “reflection rooms,” “exclusion,” and placing students “into support” to avoid
documenting incidents of seclusion and providing notice to parents of same.
87. Even when Defendants have notified parents of the restraint and seclusion of their
children, such documentation is often inadequate, lacking a description or analysis of what
triggered a child’s restraint and/or seclusion, or provided long after-the-fact.
88. Defendants appear to have actively sought to conceal their abuse from the public
eye. Despite collecting data since 2013, Defendants knowingly and falsely reported zero instances
of restraint and seclusion to the Federal government from 2013ꞏto 2017. Those reports were made
despite documentation showing that one child alone was restrained or secluded at least 82 times
during the 2013–14 school year.
89. Defendants’ failure to maintain adequate records has directly and proximately
resulted in erroneous reports to the Federal government, parents, and the public regarding restraint
and seclusion performed on students in their custody and care. While some parents have received
hundreds of pages of documentation identifying instances of restraint and seclusions, others are
left in the dark. Parents report that they learned from their children for the first time that they were
restrained or placed in seclusion rooms, without any notification from Defendants. Other parents
only learned that their child was restrained or secluded by observing it firsthand because they
happened to walk into their child’s school at the very moment the restraint or seclusion was taking
place.
30

90. In response to the media coverage of Defendants’ unlawful abuse of students with
disabilities, Defendants have all but admitted liability, yet have not taken sufficient preventative
or deterrent action to stop the systemic abuse of students with disabilities from continuing.
91. In an article published by the Washington Post, Dr. Brabrand is quoted as stating
that Defendants “have been remiss in [their] data collection and data reporting requirements for
many years.”21
92. On April 2, 2019, Defendants conducted an emergency work session of the FCPS
Board, lasting over 3.5 hours, to discuss Defendants’ rampant use of restraint and seclusion.22
93. During that meeting, Dr. Brabrand acknowledged, “It is clear that as a system, we
have fallen short in” Defendants’ policies and practices around restraint and seclusion. Work
Session.
94. Later in the meeting, Dr. Brabrand admitted that Defendants have not focused on
“accountability structures.” Id.
95. Ms. Johnson acknowledged that parent notification forms are the sole source of
data regarding incidences of restraint and seclusion. Id. Nevertheless, she also acknowledged that
FCPS does not have a system for maintaining these documents and that underreporting and the
lack of adequate data collection “is a concern.” Id.
96. Ms. Johnson further stated, “We recognize that the way schools are reporting this
manual process has resulted in inconsistencies across [FCPS].” Id. Ms. Johnson stated that

21
Debbie Truong, Fairfax Students were Secluded or Restrained Nearly 1,700 Times Last Year,
The Wash. Post (April 7, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fairfax-
students-were-secluded-or-restrained-nearly-1700-times-last-year/2019/04/07/e1f01cde-57b3-
11e9-9136-f8e636f1f6df_story.html.
22
Fairfax Cty. Pub. Schs., FCPS School Board Work Session–Discussion on Seclusion and
Restraint 04-02-2019, YouTube (Apr. 5, 2019),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPN5AvoxGWA [hereinafter Work Session].
31

although FCPS belatedly reported that a total of 1,679 instances of restraint and seclusion occurred
during the 2017–18 school year, the actual number of incidences of restraint and seclusion, for that
year and for those when FCPS falsely reported zeros, remains unknown because “those numbers
were gathered off the forms [FCPS] has collected as a system,” and, therefore, Ms. Johnson “would
not have confirmation.” Id.
97. The lack of notice to parents concerning restraint and seclusion was also discussed
at the April 2, 2019 Board Work Session. Id. Ms. Johnson committed to community engagement
and to “explore additional [stakeholder] groups for outreach . . . .” Id.
98. Even after discussion of the widely publicized numerous improper incidents of
restraint and seclusion across FCPS, and several acknowledgments by Dr. Brabrand and Ms.
Johnson that FCPS has “fallen short”—including, inter alia, in providing notice to parents,
collecting data, and monitoring restraint and seclusion—FCPS officials have failed to take
appropriate action to address these systemic problems and constitutional violations.
99. According to FCPS Guidelines, “When it has been determined that seclusion or
physical restraint was improperly implemented, corrective measures shall be undertaken by
FCPS.” FCPS Guidelines at 11–12. However, FCPS Guidelines are silent on what, if any, process
FCPS follows to recognize or correct its abusive use of restraint and seclusion. Defendants’ failure
to notify parents or collect accurate data on the use of restraint and seclusion demonstrates that, in
practice, FCPS does not even know when restraint and seclusion are used, let alone assess whether
their use was proper or implement any corrective measures.
100. Defendants’ lack of monitoring, lack of accountability, and lack of training has
resulted in routine, unnecessary, and unconstitutional restraints and seclusions, including upon
Plaintiffs, which are:
32

a. Unsafe, unreasonable, and unwarranted;
b. Not an emergency;
c. Conducted without informing parents within 24 hours;
d. Conducted without giving parents procedural safeguards;
e. For periods of time longer than necessary; and
f. Imposed without considering alternatives or accommodations and without
documenting the situation that led to use of restraint and/or seclusion.
101. Defendants’ improper actions and their devastating effects are illustrated by the
mistreatment of Individual Plaintiffs’ children with disabilities.
HARM TO PLAINTIFFS
Q.T.
102. Over the course of seven years from 2011 to 2018, from the ages of five to twelve,
Q.T., a thirteen-year-old, non-verbal student with autism, was restrained and secluded at least
approximately 745 documented times by Defendants’ staff or their agents.
103. A total of at least 422 instances of restraint and seclusion initially occurred in a
general education setting, and at least an additional 323 incidents of restraint and seclusion
occurred after Q.T. was moved, at FCPS’ insistence and cost, into a private contract facility.
104. On those approximately 745 occasions, Q.T. was first physically restrained in the
classroom and then placed in a six-by-six-foot padded room with a magnetically locked door,
where he was left in isolation.
105. For example, while attending Kennedy Krieger, Q.T. was placed in “exclusion,”
i.e., a solitary, isolated room where he received instruction alone without any other children
present. The isolation room Q.T. was placed in was surrounded by four adjacent seclusion cells.
Q.T. was only permitted to leave “exclusion” to use the restroom. Q.T. spent two consecutive
33

months in “exclusion.” The only way he was permitted to leave was to earn his way back out
through what Defendants’ deemed to be good behavior for three consecutive days. Despite Ms.
Tidd’s pleas to curtail this type of extreme measure given the increasing distress she witnessed her
child experiencing, Defendants did nothing and continued to place Q.T. in “exclusion.”
106. Upon information and belief, Q.T.’s last known incident of restraint or seclusion
by Defendants and/or their agents occurred on October 12, 2018, at Kennedy Krieger School in
Silver Spring, Maryland, which was under contract with Defendants and, at all times relevant,
acted as an agent of Defendants.
107. Q.T. has been left in seclusion rooms and removed from his peers for hundreds of
hours. Ms. Tidd did not receive formal or appropriate documentation or notice of these instances
within 24 hours pursuant to FCPS Guidelines.
108. Indeed, Ms. Tidd did not receive formal or appropriate documentation or timely
notices pursuant to FCPS Guidelines for many of these incidents until years after the incidents
occurred. Ms. Tidd did not receive documentation for some of these instances of restraint and
seclusion until the summer of 2015, after she obtained counsel who submitted a Freedom of
Information Act request on her behalf. The documentation she received revealed to her for the
first time the previous four years of Q.T.’s systematic and unlawful restraint and seclusion by
Defendants. Nevertheless, Q.T. continued to be unlawfully restrained and secluded until 2018.
109. Q.T. was regularly secluded for reasons that did not pose an imminent threat to
himself or others in violation of his constitutional rights. For example, in one instance he was
secluded after exhibiting escalating behaviors that initially arose from throwing his headphones in
a toilet.
34

110. In addition to those 745 documented incidences, Q.T. was regularly secluded in
“quiet rooms” for similar reasons that did not pose an imminent threat to his own safety or the
safety of others.
111. At times and in order to escape, Q.T., who had been potty trained since the age of
five, soiled himself until released. In some instances, Defendants’ staff or their agents gave Q.T.
rubber gloves and a disinfectant wipe and instructed him to go back into the seclusion cell to clean
up his own urine.
112. Numerous other times, as an end run around their own guidelines, Defendants’ staff
or their agents placed Q.T. in “quiet rooms” and/or “Resource Suites” and left the door open to
avoid documenting his forced isolation as a seclusion, even though Q.T. was prevented from
leaving.
113. Moreover, there were at least approximately 453 instances where Q.T. was
removed from his peers, though not placed in an isolated room, in what amounts to a de facto
seclusion.
114. Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to use de-escalation strategies or
PBIS methods and, in fact, their lack of techniques served to exacerbate Q.T.’s behaviors.
115. Upon information and belief, Q.T. has been subjected to unlawful restraints and
seclusion on hundreds of occasions without appropriate documentation.
116. Q.T. has been severely harmed by seven years of continuous improper restraint and
seclusion.
117. Q.T. has been fearful to attend school because of Defendants’ persistent and
unnecessary use of restraint and seclusion.
35

118. After enduring repeated instances of restraint and seclusion, Q.T. has experienced
regression in activities of daily life. For example, Q.T. can no longer:
a. go into any room with a closed door;
b. go to the bathroom by himself and close the door, as he once did, for fear of being
in isolation;
c. sleep alone in his own room as he once did; and
d. shower or bathe unless he knows a parent is nearby.
119. To this day, Q.T. experiences sleeplessness and nightmares resulting from his
forced isolation in Defendants’ care and custody.
120. Until Q.T. was placed in a new school where seclusion is never used and limited
forms of standing restraint are only implemented in exceptional circumstances, he was not safe.
Although Q.T.’s academic performance has improved since he has transferred to a school that does
not use seclusion and strictly limits standing restraints, there is nothing to prevent his current
school from beginning to implement the same pervasive practices utilized throughout the FCPS
system or to prevent Defendants from moving him to another school that does.
A.O. & D.O.
121. A.O. is an eight-year-old child diagnosed with an emotional disability. She began
attending kindergarten at Fairview Elementary School in the Fall of 2016, when she was five years
old.
122. From the Fall of 2016 through May 2019, A.O. has been restrained and secluded
on numerous occasions for reasons that do not pose an imminent threat of harm to herself or others,
like hiding in the bathroom from her teachers or not doing her classwork.
123. In almost all known instances, Defendants failed to provide Ms. Ononiwu with
parental notification within 24 hours.

36

124. Ms. Ononiwu first learned that A.O. was being restrained when she walked into
Fairview Elementary School and witnessed A.O. without shoes, having had her shoes knocked off
as she was being dragged down the hall and held down by FCPS personnel for refusing to complete
a math worksheet. Ms. Ononiwu was never provided appropriate documentation or notice of this
incident within 24 hours pursuant to FCPS Guidelines, or documentation explaining why restraint
was used.
125. In May of 2019, Defendants forced A.O. to attend Burke Alternative Learning
Center in lieu of general, inclusive education.
126. In May of 2019, A.O. experienced emotional trauma from witnessing Defendants’
staff use an unwarranted physical chokehold on her classmate.
127. In that same month at Burke Alternative Learning Center, A.O.’s teacher requested
that an SRO take A.O. to a “reflection room” when she was standing near the stairs and not moving
back to her classroom. Upon information and belief, A.O.’s behavior posed no risk of harm to
herself or others. Ms. Ononiwu has never received notification from Defendants related to this
incident.
128. As a result of these experiences, A.O. has experienced increased anxiety,
exacerbating her underlying emotional disability, and is terrified to attend school for fear that she
will be physically harmed by Defendants’ staff and agents.
129. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ improper use of restraint and
seclusion, A.O. has missed days of school for fear of being injured by Defendants’ employees.
A.O. experiences trauma in enclosed rooms and cannot be in her own bedroom with the door
closed. A.O. experiences nightmares and is fearful in public settings when she sees individuals
resembling FCPS staff.
37

130. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ improper use of restraint and
seclusion, A.O. attends ongoing counseling by a clinical psychologist to address the trauma related
to Defendants’ unlawful actions.
131. Ms. Ononiwu has since placed A.O. into a private educational setting because of
A.O.’s fear of returning to FCPS. In the short time she has been in a private school, A.O. has
improved behaviorally and has had no documented behavioral issues.
132. D.O., A.O.’s younger brother, began attending Fairview Elementary School in the
Fall of 2018 when he was six years old. D.O. has ADHD and developmental delay.
133. From the Fall of 2018 through June 2019, D.O. has been restrained and secluded at
least four times within four weeks for disability-related needs that do not pose an imminent threat
of harm to D.O. or others. For example, D.O. has been restrained or secluded in instances where
he has merely left the classroom without permission.
134. In one of those four known instances, D.O. was restrained by Defendants’ staff for
throwing water bottles. The use of restraint caused D.O.’s behaviors to escalate, which
Defendants’ staff used as further justification to continuously restrain and seclude him without
employing less intrusive interventions.
135. In another instance, Ms. Ononiwu came to the Fairview Elementary to pick D.O.
up for a dentist appointment and witnessed an SRO holding D.O. in a chokehold. The SRO was
bending D.O. at a 90-degree angle while D.O. struggled and stated “let go” multiple times. Ms.
Ononiwu did not receive formal notice within 24 hours pursuant to FCPS Guidelines regarding
the incident.
136. When Ms. Ononiwu ultimately received some documentation of the incident—
though incomplete and not in accordance with FCPS Guidelines—the documents revealed that
38

D.O. was physically restrained by an SRO for a period of 30 minutes to 1.5 hours. That SRO later
claimed he sustained injuries from holding D.O. for so long and with such force.
137. Regarding the final of the four known incidents, D.O. was suspended from
kindergarten on October 5, 2018 for 10 days. Eleven days later, it was determined that the conduct
for which D.O. had been suspended was a manifestation of his disability-related needs.
138. Upon information and belief, this restraint took place after an incident in which
D.O. threw books on the ground at school or engaged in behaviors that were escalated due to
Defendants’ attempts to restrain and seclude him. As with A.O.,
139. In October 2018, Defendants required D.O. to leave a general education setting at
Fairview Elementary School and placed him at Burke Alternative Learning Center. There,
Defendants continued to use unnecessary restraint and seclusion on D.O. without notice to Ms.
Ononiwu pursuant to FCPS Guidelines.
140. The last known incident of seclusion of D.O. occurred on March 21, 2019, when
D.O. was forced to go to a “reflection room” by a Behavior Intervention Specialist because he laid
down on his classroom floor. Although Ms. Ononiwu asked for information regarding this
incident, she was only provided with a general description of what happened after-the-fact and did
not receive a timely notice or full report pursuant to FCPS Guidelines.
141. The last known incident of restraint of D.O. occurred on June 6, 2019, while riding
the bus home from Burke Alternative Learning Center. D.O. was restrained for not wanting to sit
next to a bus aide. During that restraint, D.O. was struck in the head by a handheld radio. D.O.
came home with physical injuries and experienced a concussion, headaches, and concentration
issues as a result. Ms. Ononiwu requested documentation regarding this incident from Defendants,
but she never received it.
39

142. Upon information and belief, as a result of the last incident of restraint, Defendants
attempted to require D.O. to wear a “safety vest” when travelling on the bus in anticipation of his
potential behaviors and not in response to any current threat to self or others. Defendants proposed
this form of restraint based on their assumption that D.O. has the potential to cause harm to himself
and others. Ms. Ononiwu rejected this request as a form of restraint.
143. Upon information and belief, in lieu of using a vest, Defendants have created a
single bus route for D.O. where he is the only child on the bus, thereby creating a de facto form of
seclusion.
144. As a result of these experiences, D.O. experiences increased anxiety when he is in
a room with a closed door.
C.T.
145. C.T. is a ten-year-old boy with autism, sensory processing disorder, anxiety, social
and emotional communication delay, and ADHD. C.T. has attended FCPS since 2014. He
attended Colin Powell Elementary School from 2014 to 2015 and has attended Eagle View
Elementary School from 2015 to 2019.
146. C.T. has been subjected to numerous unnecessary restraints, seclusion, and
unlawful seizures from 2015 to 2019, with the last known incident of restraint and seclusion
occurring on May 20, 2019, at Eagle View Elementary School.
147. On May 20, 2019, Ms. Thomas received an e-mail from C.T.’s teacher at Eagle
View Elementary School claiming that C.T. was “having a difficult morning” and was “refusing
work and ha[d] been stabbing his breakfast container with a pencil.” Ms. Thomas received a
second e-mail stating that C.T. was “back on track.”
148. Later, Ms. Thomas received a third e-mail stating that C.T. was “being very
confrontational, cussing, and using sexually inappropriate language.” At that point, C.T.’s teacher
40

“requested to put [C.T.] into support,” another term for forced seclusion. C.T.’s teacher reported
that, while he was walking C.T. to “support,” C.T. commented, “I want to die, can someone just
kill me?”
149. After receiving the third e-mail, Ms. Thomas went directly to Eagle View
Elementary School and arrived minutes later. When she walked into the front door, she heard C.T.
screaming, “Somebody help me, please let me out!” from inside a seclusion room. This was the
first Ms. Thomas learned about seclusion rooms in Eagle View Elementary School, let alone that
her child had been placed in one.
150. C.T.’s comment could in no way be interpreted as an imminent threat of harm to
himself or others; nor is isolation an appropriate response to such a statement. Nevertheless, he
was restrained and forced into seclusion.
151. After this incident, C.T. stayed home from school for two days due to his fear and
anxiety about returning to the seclusion room.
152. On May 23, 2019, Ms. Thomas sent an e-mail to C.T.’s teacher requesting
documentation relating to this incident; C.T.’s teacher never responded.
153. C.T. reported to Ms. Thomas that he has been secluded in the past, often for non-
dangerous reasons like refusing to do his classwork. Each time he was secluded, he was also
restrained by FCPS staff and/or agents who twisted his arm behind his back and forced him down
the hall to the seclusion room.
154. During C.T.’s four years at Eagle View Elementary School, Ms. Thomas never
received any documentation from Defendants relating to restraint or seclusion in accordance with
FCPS Guidelines.
41

155. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, C.T. has experienced
sleepwalking and waking up screaming in terror, yelling that he does “not want to go in there.”
Organizational Plaintiffs
156. Organizational Plaintiffs have a shared mission of ending systemic mistreatment of
persons with disabilities, including in school. Each organization includes members with children
attending FCPS and/or represents the interests of such persons in its policy, advocacy, and outreach
work. Moreover, Organizational Plaintiffs have diverted significant resources to combat the use
unlawful use of restraint and seclusion against students with disabilities. Thus, Organizational
Plaintiffs have both organizational and representational standing through their members who have
been unjustifiably restrained and secluded by Defendants.
157. COPAA brings this suit on behalf of its members and in furtherance of its extensive
efforts and expenditure of resources in promoting its principal mission of securing appropriate and
equal educational services for students with disabilities. COPAA members have called for use of
positive approaches and limiting restraint and ending seclusion in schools since 2008. COPAA
members are active in educating parents and students about their rights and about dangers of
restraint and seclusion; the passage of state level legislation that protects students; and efforts to
pass federal legislation that creates uniform protection, recourse and a bright line regarding the
imposition of restraint and resulting obligations on school districts.
158. ASAN has spent numerous hours over the past several years on advocacy to combat
seclusion and restraint in schools, in part due to complaints from families such as the Individual
Plaintiffs. ASAN has participated in coalition workgroups to analyze and develop policy measures
that would end seclusion and restraint in schools and written comments on federal regulations
concerning seclusion and restraint in schools. It has also met numerous times with federal
legislators on proposed or pending legislation concerning restraint and seclusion in schools, which
42

occupied approximately 80 hours of staff time in the past year and several additional hours of time
from volunteers and members. Moreover, ASAN has spent considerable staff time on resources
for publication on policy issues facing the autistic community, including restraint and seclusion in
schools. If not for the numerous complaints from its members and members of the public that it
has received on this issue, including complaints from families in FCPS, ASAN would have been
able to expend these resources on advocacy around the many other pressing issues affecting the
autistic community. ASAN brings this suit on behalf of its members and in furtherance of its
mission to ensure that autistic individuals are safe, are treated equally under the law, are included
in mainstream settings, and are provided appropriate education without fear of discrimination.
159. Communication First serves approximately 5 million children and adults in the
United States with expressive speech-related disabilities, either congenital, developmental, or
acquired. It receives calls weekly from individuals who have children with communication-related
disabilities and are students that experience unlawful restraint, seclusion, or forced isolation.
Communication First uses its resources to respond to these calls and assist these individuals to
address problems involving restraint and seclusion, as well as the subsequent mental health and
trauma caused by restraint and seclusion. Communication First works with individuals who have
witnessed or been a victim of restraint and seclusion at times in their lives when they had not
access to effective communication tools and supports and were unable to report these traumatic
experiences to others. Communication First brings this suit on behalf of its members and in
furtherance of its mission to educate the public and advocate for policy reform to advance the
rights, autonomy, opportunity, and dignity of people with speech-related communication
disabilities and conditions.
43

There is no requirement that Plaintiffs exhaust administrative remedies.
160. Defendants’ response to the media outcry involving its unlawful and unjustified use
of restraint and seclusion illustrates why exhaustion is not required in this case. That Defendants
held an emergency meeting and have since created an advisory Task Force to Dr. Brabrand to try
and resolve the issues arising from their unlawful practices, establish why the remedies Plaintiffs
seek in this lawsuit are unavailable through traditional methods of administrative review and due
process under the IDEA because these solutions require systemic planning, funding, and
administration that cannot be obtained through that process. Moreover, remedies through the
IDEA administrative process are not available to Organizational Plaintiffs.
161. Even when exhaustion of administrative remedies is required, exhaustion is
excused when: further administrative actions would be futile; an agency has adopted a policy or
pursued a practice of general applicability that is contrary to the law; Plaintiffs have not received
adequate notice to exercise their due process rights; and relief available through additional
administrative efforts would be inadequate to address a plaintiff’s claims. All of these exceptions
apply to Plaintiffs’ claims.
162. Defendants have consistently failed to provide timely appropriate notice to
Individual Plaintiffs’ of each instance of restraint and/or seclusion, denying Individual Plaintiffs’
their administrative due process rights.
163. Even if such notice were appropriately given, Defendants’ systemic failure to
knowingly plan, fund, and administer a system designed to address behavioral issues through
effective means, which is the gravamen of this complaint, could not be addressed in a due process
proceeding.
164. Specifically, the lynchpin of Plaintiffs’ complaint is Defendants’ failure to:
44

a. ensure all students with disabilities are provided with basic reasonable
accommodations to address their disability-related support needs throughout the
day;
b. provide appropriate training of school district staff;
c. make available and provide FBAs and BIPs;
d. proliferate evidence-based supports like a system of PBIS to deescalate their
students’ behaviors without restraint and seclusion;
e. provide a sufficient number of qualified staff across FCPS available to implement
such positive behavioral support techniques;
f. establish professional competencies and qualification for such staff;
g. implement district-wide data collection and reporting on both the use of restraint
and seclusion and the implementation of alternative techniques; and
h. continuously monitor and respond to restraint and seclusion incidents across
FCPS.
165. Defendants’ systemic failure to be transparent in their approach to rectify their
inappropriate restraint and seclusion practices is contrary to law, places this matter outside the
realm of traditional notions of IDEA due process requiring court intervention.
166. Moreover, individual plaintiffs seek damages and other remedies that are not
available under the IDEA.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
VIOLATIONS OF TITLE II OF THE ADA
(on behalf of Individual Plaintiffs and Organizational Plaintiffs)
167. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs, as if alleged
herein.
45

168. Title II of the ADA applies to all services, programs, and activities of public
entities, including public educational institutions.
169. Defendants are, and at all relevant times have been, public entities covered by Title
II of the ADA.
170. Under Title II of the ADA, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason
of such disability, 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.” 42
U.S.C. § 12132; see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.
171. Moreover, the ADA makes it unlawful for a public entity to “[d]eny a qualified
individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or
service,” or “[a]fford a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in or
benefit from the aid, benefit, or service" that is not equal to that afforded to others[.]” Id. §
35.130(b)(1)(i)–(ii).
172. A public entity must not “provide a qualified individual with a disability with an
aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same
result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to
others.” Id. § 35.130(b)(1)(iii).
173. A public entity must also “make reasonable modifications” to its services and
activities “when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination.” Id. § 35.130(b)(7)(i).
174. Finally, a public entity must administer services, programs, and activities in the
most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. Id. §
35.130(d).
46

175. Under the ADA, public schools are responsible for the discriminatory actions of
school officials, school employees, and everyone over whom a school exercises control, whether
through contract or other arrangement, including SROs, whether they are school district employees
or work for a non-district law enforcement agency.
176. Schools cannot divest themselves of responsibility for the nondiscriminatory
administration of school policies, including restraint, by relying on SROs, school district police
officers, contract or private security companies, security guards, other contractors, or other law
enforcement personnel administering school policies.
177. Public schools are also responsible under the ADA for the discriminatory actions
and inaction of their other agents, including private schools in which a public-school district places
its students.
178. Defendants have systemically violated Title II of the ADA by routinely excluding
students with disabilities from the benefits and services of a publicly funded educational
institution. By unnecessarily using restraint and seclusion as a disciplinary measure against
students with disabilities, Defendants’ actions and inaction have culminated in hostile learning
environments that deny Plaintiffs the participation in or receipt of benefits, services, or
opportunities.
179. Defendants have treated students with disabilities differently from students without
disabilities by placing them in isolation cells in response to insubordination or minor behaviors.
180. Defendants’ disproportionately use restraint and seclusion on students with
disabilities as punitive measures.
181. Defendants fail to train, oversee and hold their employees accountable for such
physical and psychological punishments in derogation of FCPS Guidelines.
47

182. Defendants’ abuses are directly and proximately caused by their intentional failure
to plan, fund, and administer a system designed to respond to disability-related needs through
effective means including:
a. ensuring all students with disabilities are provided with reasonable modifications
to address their disability-related support needs throughout the day;
b. strictly limiting use of restraint and seclusion on students with disabilities;
c. appropriate training and oversight of school district staff;
d. providing FBAs, BIPS, and PBIS services to respond to students’ disability-related
behaviors without restraint and seclusion;
e. providing sufficient qualified staff to implement positive behavioral support
techniques;
f. instituting effective and appropriate data collection, reporting, and responses on
the use of restraint and seclusion (e.g. the number of incidents, the circumstances,
and the duration) and the implementation of alternative techniques; and
g. monitoring restraint and seclusion incidents across FCPS to ensure they are
utilized only when appropriate.
183. Defendants have failed to provide students with disabilities reasonable
accommodations, such as PBIS, and have denied students with disabilities “equal opportunity to
obtain” or reach the “same level of achievement as that provided to others” who are not subjected
to restraint and seclusion.
184. Defendants have further violated the ADA and their own guidelines by subjecting
students with disabilities, including Plaintiffs, to restraint and seclusion for unnecessary periods of
time well after any purported behavioral concerns have been addressed.
48

185. Moreover, Defendants’ overuse of restraint and seclusion segregates students with
disabilities from their classrooms and classmates and, thus, fails to serve them in the most
integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Defendants have failed to timely return Plaintiffs to
the learning environment even after they have been unnecessarily restrained or secluded.
186. Defendants have harmed Organizational Plaintiffs by subjecting their members to
the same discriminatory treatment as Plaintiffs. Defendants have discriminated by virtue of their
use of unnecessary restraint and seclusion, thereby frustrating Organizational Plaintiffs’ core
missions to prevent unlawful restraint and seclusion against students with disabilities. Defendants’
discrimination has caused Organizational Plaintiffs to divert significant resources to combat the
unlawful use of restraint and seclusion against students with disabilities.
187. Defendants have intentionally infringed on the rights of Plaintiffs and/or been
indifferent to their rights and the foreseeable harms.
COUNT II
VIOLATIONS OF THE SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT
herein.
189. Defendants are, and at all relevant times have been, recipients of federal funds
covered by Section 504.
190. Under Section 504 and its regulations, 29 U.S.C. § 794, 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(a), no
qualified person with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded form participation
in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity which receives federal financial assistance.
49

191. Section 504 covers school officials, school employees, and everyone over whom a
school exercises control, whether through contract or other arrangement, including SROs, and
private schools in which a public-school district places its students. 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(2)(B).
192. Defendants have systemically violated Section 504 by disproportionately and
unlawfully using restraint and seclusion as a de facto punishment against students with disabilities,
denying students with disabilities reasonable modifications such as PBIS, and routinely excluding
students with disabilities from the benefits and services of a publicly funded educational
institution. Defendants’ actions and inaction have culminated in hostile learning environments
that deny Plaintiffs the participation in or receipt of benefits, services, or opportunities.
193. Defendants have harmed Organizational Plaintiffs by subjecting their members to
the same discriminatory treatment as Individual Plaintiffs. Defendants have discriminated by
virtue of their use of unnecessary restraint and seclusion, thereby frustrating Organizational
Plaintiffs’ core missions to prevent unlawful restraint and seclusion against students with
disabilities. Defendants’ discrimination has caused Organizational Plaintiffs to divert significant
resources to combat the unlawful use of restraint and seclusion against students with disabilities.
194. Defendants have intentionally infringed on the rights of Plaintiffs and/or been
deliberately indifferent to their rights and the foreseeable harms.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
herein.
196. Defendants have committed constitutional violations against Plaintiffs under color
of law.
50

197. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,

custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be
liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress . . . .
198. Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights under color of law by subjecting them to unlawful seizures, denying them due process of
law, and denying them educational opportunities equal to non-disabled students.
199. The Fourth Amendment provides the right to be free from “unreasonable searches
and seizures[.]” U.S. Const. amend IV.
200. Defendants’ actions relating to Plaintiffs constitute unlawful seizures that are
objectively unreasonable under the circumstances and in light of the educational objectives
Defendants purport to be trying to achieve. Defendants’ staff, employees, and contractors are
acting under color of law under § 1983 and are directly and proximately responsible for the
deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights.
201. The Fourteenth Amendment mandates that all persons born in the United States are
entitled to due process before restriction of their liberty, and to equal protection of the laws. U.S.
Const. amend XIV.
202. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a state entity assumes a duty to provide
reasonable care to protect a child with whom it has formed a special relationship, such as a child
entrusted in the care of a school system.
203. The foregoing actions and omissions of Defendants constitute a policy, practice,
pattern, and/or custom of discriminating against Plaintiffs in violation of the constitutionally
protected liberty and privacy interests.

51

204. Defendants’ actions have violated Plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal
protection by subjecting them to unnecessary and unreasonable restraint and seclusion and by
isolating them in seclusion based on their disabilities. Defendants’ restraint and seclusion system
lacks transparency and accountability and deprives Plaintiffs of due process, including adequate
notice regarding students’ unlawful seizures, and denies them equal protection by subjecting
Plaintiffs to harsher discipline than for those without disabilities who engage in similar conduct.
205. Defendants’ actions have violated Plaintiffs’ right to due process by restricting their
liberty through unnecessary restraint and seclusion in non-emergency situations without any
process, or even notice to parents.
206. Defendants acted intentionally or with reckless indifference to the constitutional
rights of the Plaintiffs.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the judgment of the Court against Defendants as follows:
A. Find and declare that Defendants have discriminated against Individual Plaintiffs
and Organizational Plaintiffs on the basis of their disabilities, in violation of Title II of the ADA
and Section 504 by excluding them from participation in and denying the benefits of a public
education;
B. Find and declare that Defendants have discriminated against Individual Plaintiffs
and Section 504 by denying them equal opportunity to participate in the benefits provided by
Defendants that are afforded to students without disabilities and by unnecessarily segregating
them, depriving them of the most integrated setting appropriate;
C. Find and declare that Defendants have discriminated against Individual Plaintiffs
52

and Section 504 by failing to provide reasonable modifications in lieu of unlawful restraint and
seclusion;
D. Find and declare that Defendants have violated 41 U.S.C. § 1983 and infringed on
Individual Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution by subjecting them to unlawful seizures and denying them due process
and equal protection;
E. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction directing Defendants to cease and
desist from using restraint and seclusion on all students with disabilities in the FCPS system until
an appropriate alternative system can be planned, funded, administered, and implemented;
F. Order Defendants to develop and implement a Response to Intervention Program,
to include PBIS and trauma informed practices, positive educational and preventive practices and
services, that provides an effective evidence-based district-wide classroom management and
behavioral supports system to prevent discrimination against, and unnecessary restraint and
seclusion of, students with disabilities;
G. Order Defendants to hire a qualified consultant(s) to assist Defendants to make
structural changes to FCPS’ systems to ensure evidence-based interventions, curriculum, and
training are used to respond to student disabilities, reduce disparities in the administration of
restraint and seclusion, eliminate use of restraint and seclusion as disciplinary or punitive
measures, and effectively implement PBIS, including trauma informed practices, positive
educational and preventive practices and services, and Restorative Practices, as well as sufficient
psychological, speech, and other therapeutic services to meet the needs of students with
disabilities;
53

H. Order Defendants to hire, train, coach, coordinate, and evaluate sufficient staff and
employees on evidence-based practices to avoid restraint and seclusion and to use in its place
trauma informed PBIS, including training on the proper application of discipline applied to
students with disabilities, including those on autism spectrum and those who have speech and
communication-related disabilities;
I. Order Defendants to develop and implement a process to identify students who are
disproportionately subject to disciplinary referrals and set benchmarks for identifying students
monthly based on appropriate risk criteria;
J. Order Defendants to develop and implement mechanisms to conduct FBAs and
BIPs for all students who have been subjected to restraint or seclusion and to develop and
implement procedures to timely provide FBAs and BIPs in response to any incident of restraint or
seclusion, as well as to provide such assessments and plans timely upon request of a parent;
K. Order Defendants to dedicate sufficient funding to implement the system, provide
the needed interventions, and meet the related behavioral and therapeutic needs of students with
disabilities;
L. Order Defendants to monitor, collect data, and review procedures sufficient to
evaluate progress and impact of the system and to respond to improper uses of restraint and
seclusion;
M. Order Defendants to designate a qualified responsible FCPS employee within the
Superintendent’s Office, as well as employees in each region, to oversee implementation,
compliance, monitoring, and reporting on the system;
54

N. Order Defendants to provide dedicated therapy and counseling services to all
students with disabilities who have been traumatized by Defendants use of restraint and seclusion,
including Individual Plaintiffs’ children and members of Organizational Plaintiffs;
O. Order Defendants to provide training to their employees and staff on the anti-
retaliation provisions of federal and state law as they apply to students, parents or third parties,
including school personnel who engage in protected activity of reporting, assisting or testifying on
behalf of students subject to improper seclusion, restraint or improper physical conduct;
P. Order Defendants to revise their policies and Code of Conduct to incorporate
developmentally appropriate prevention and intervention strategies for each disciplinary tier and
requirements for communication with parents to address infractions and assist with transition back
to the school and/or classroom environment in the event the child is subject to exclusionary
discipline;
Q. Order Defendants to conduct a review of their records and submit revised reports
to the Federal government regarding the incidences of restraint and seclusion since 2009, including
disaggregated data in accordance with the Federal government’s requirements that such data be
submitted to reflect the total number of students subjected to restraint or seclusion by
race/ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency status, and disability;
R. Order Defendants to appoint an intervention coordinator who is qualified to manage
the development and implementation of the Intervention Program, develop policies and
intervention documents (including FBAs, BIPs, and Crisis Plans) to assist Defendants’ staff in
appropriately and effectively managing student misbehavior, ensure that FBAs, BIPs, and Crisis
Plans are completed when required, and to carry out all other responsibilities related to the
Intervention Program;
55

S. Order Defendants to develop and implement a system to provide timely notice of
incidences of restraint and seclusion to parents as required by law;
T. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages;
U. Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including litigation expenses,
as provided by law; and
V. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kevin Byrnes

Kevin E. Byrnes, VSB No. 47623
Fluet Huber + Hoang, PLLC
1751 Pinnacle Drive
10th Floor
Tysons, Virginia 22102
T: (703) 590-1234
F: (703) 590-0366
[email protected]
Regina Kline (pro hac vice pending)

Eve L. Hill (pro hac vice pending)
Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum (pro hac vice pending)
Anthony J. May (pro hac vice pending)
BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP
120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
T: (410) 962-1030
F: (410) 385-0869
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Dated: October 8, 2019
56

FCPS Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FCPS Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FCPS Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:19-cv-01285 Document 1 Filed 10/08/19 Page 1 of 56 PageID# 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COUNCIL OF PARENT ATTORNEYS AND

AUTISTIC SELF ADVOCACY NETWORK, and

FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

DR. SCOTT BRABAND,

Assistant Superintendent, Department of Special Services:

1. Plaintiffs are students with disabilities and organizations comprised, in part, by

to the United States Constitution.

3. Defendants’ deployment of techniques more in tune with incarcerated prisoners

evidence-based practices on how to address students with disabilities.

intentional disregard for the rights of students with disabilities.

children with disabilities.

of circumstances. In contrast, Defendants have applied these practices as a routine response to

constitutional rights of students with disabilities.

to address the needs of those children.

assault or imprisonment, cannot be rationally or legally defensible.

11. Defendants have responded to disability-related needs with exceedingly harsh,

challenging disability-related needs in the most integrated setting appropriate.

12. By relying on excessive and unnecessary restraint and seclusion in response to

disabilities and engaging in unconstitutional seizures.

counterproductive, harmful, and ineffective.

14. Defendants do not impose similar disciplinary responses to students without

effective means including:

accommodations to address their disability-related support needs throughout the

b. strictly limiting use of restraint and seclusion on students with disabilities;

c. appropriate training and oversight of school district staff;

d. providing functional behavioral assessments (“FBAs”), behavioral intervention

plans (“BIPs”), Multi-tiered System of Supports (“MTSS”), and Positive

Behavioral Intervention and Supports (“PBIS”), including trauma informed

practices, positive educational and preventive practices and services to respond to

students’ disability-related needs without restraint and seclusion;

e. providing sufficient qualified staff to implement positive behavioral support

duration) and the implementation of alternative techniques; and

utilized only when appropriate.

and admission of misconduct.

of students with disabilities to achieve their educational objectives. There is no pedagogical

purpose for Defendants’ actions.

isolating them in seclusion without cause.

reasonable modifications required by the ADA and Section 504.

denied valuable learning time.

other than creating a school-sponsored Task Force.

County. Plaintiffs share questions of law and fact in common.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1331 and 1343.

with a disability under the ADA and Section 504.

32. COPAA is a national not-for-profit organization of parents of children with

affecting the education of students with disabilities.

over the past several years.

34. Communication First is a national not-for-profit organization dedicated to

billion. FCPS has a staff of over 24,000.

process, allocation of resources, training of employees, and methods of data collection.

Services. Ms. Johnson is charged with providing a planned program of instructional,

as reporting incidences of restraint and seclusion to the Federal government.

Discriminatory and dangerous effects of restraint and seclusion on students with

defines restraint and seclusion as follows:

a. Physical restraint is a “personal restriction that immobilizes or reduces the

Resource Document at 10.

b. Seclusion is “[t]he involuntary confinement of a student alone in a room or area

include a timeout, which is a behavior management technique that is part of an