Ed Law Briefly: Was District "Deliberately Indifferent" to Bullying and Harassment of Special Ed Student Who Committed Suicide?

RCEd Commentary

Background:  In Texas, Montana Lance, a fourth grade student at Steward’s Creek Elementary School, received special education and related services under both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504).  Beginning in the second grade, Montana’s mother informed teachers of several comments he made about hurting himself. Based on this information, the school immediately conducted a comprehensive psychological evaluation, and Montana was identified as “emotionally disturbed” under IDEA and received an individualized education plan (IEP). 

Throughout elementary school, other students subjected Montana to constant instances of bullying and harassment. On January 12 of Montana’s fourth-grade year, he informed a teacher of his intention to commit suicide. A school counselor informed Montana’s parents and they arranged on January 18 for Montana to meet with a psychologist, who concluded that Montana gave no indication of a genuine intent to commit suicide.  Three days later, Montana was harassed by several students. Later that same day, Montana was sent to the school’s administrative office for talking in class.

While in the school office, he was allowed to use the school nurse’s bathroom. After being in the bathroom for a considerable period, the school nurse checked on Montana, and he responded “he’d be right out.” Shortly after, however, Montana failed to respond to the nurse.  A school custodian used a screwdriver to open the bathroom door, and he found Montana hanging from his belt attached to a metal rod in the ceiling.  Montana had no pulse and was pronounced dead at the hospital.

After Montana’s death, his parents sued the district, claiming the constant bullying and harassment by other students as well as the district’s failure to address Montana’s disabilities led him to commit suicide.  

Issue: Is a district legally responsible when a special education student commits suicide after bullying and harassment by other students? What if parents claim the education offered was inadequate and the tragedy preventable if more diligence had been applied?

Legal Principles:  Montana’s parents raised two related legal claims based on Section 504.  The first was an alleged failure by the school district to provide Montana with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) under Section 504.  In order to satisfy this claim, Montana’s parents must demonstrate the district refused to provide reasonable accommodations that would enable him to receive the full benefits of the school’s programs. Second, the parents allege the district was “deliberately indifferent” to Montana’s disability-based bullying and harassment from other students.  Together, both legal claims address the issue of school district liability involving instances of student-to-student bullying and harassment based on disability.

Outcome:  The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision in favor of the district.  The court rejected Montana’s parents’ claim that the district failed to provide him with the proper educational services necessary to satisfy Section 504’s FAPE requirement. The ruling explained that Section 504 regulations specifically indicate that adopting a student’s valid IEP is a sufficient but unnecessary condition to satisfying Section 504’s FAPE requirements. In this particular case, Montana’s parents never challenged the adequacy of Montana’s IEP or the process by which it was developed. The evidence presented in court demonstrates the district satisfied its Section 504 FAPE obligations by implementing a valid IEP for Montana under the IDEA. 

The Fifth Circuit also rejected Montana’s parents’ second claim alleging the district was “deliberately indifferent” to the disability-based harassment Montana received from other students. In its decision, the Fifth Circuit cited the United States Supreme Court case, Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), which held school districts may be liable for failure to address student-on-student sexual harassment “only where they are deliberately indifferent to the harassment, of which they have actual knowledge, that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.”

The Davis case has been interpreted to apply to Section 504 student disability-based claims. In a Section 504 case, the Davis decision requires plaintiffs like Montana’s parents to prove the following five factors: (1) the student was an individual with a disability, (2) the student was harassed based on this disability, (3) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive that it altered the condition of their education and created an abusive educational environment, (4) the school and/or district knew of the harassment, and (5) the school and/or district was deliberately indifferent to the harassment. 

According to the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, the district was found not to be deliberately indifferent to Montana’s bullying and harassment for three reasons. First, the district investigated two documented incidents of harassment and disciplined the students involved.  Second, elementary school staff responded to Montana’s educational and special education needs in a proactive manner. Third, the district’s anti-bullying policies were determined to be appropriate and in accordance with national standards. 

One of the judges wrote, “Section 504 does not require that schools eradicate each instance of bullying from their hallways to avoid liability. Judges make poor vice principals.” 

Lessons for Principals and Teachers:

• School districts can potentially be liable for failing to provide necessary educational services under Section 504. School districts need to provide “reasonable” accommodations for the student(s) with disabilities in order to receive the full benefits of a school’s program.
• School districts can also be liable for disability-based discrimination by denying an educational benefit to nondisabled student peers. 
• School officials need to continually monitor their district’s anti-bullying and harassment policies to ensure they are appropriate and in compliance with both federal and state laws. The policy should likely include a statement on procedures to prevent disability-based bullying or harassment by students.  

Federal Special Education Law(s):
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701

United States Supreme Court:
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999)

U.S. District Court for the 5th Circuit:
Estate of Montana Lance v. Lewisville Independent School District, 743 F.3d 982 (5th Cir. 2014)

_{Note: This information is not intended as legal advice. Federal and other court decisions can differ depending on what region of the country you live in. State laws also weigh in on certain issues. All cases are for educational purposes only, and meant to demonstrate how courts or administrative agencies have acted in specific instances as well as to provide information that can bolster the overall legal literacy of teachers and administrators. Local school attorneys can provide more detail about local law.}