Accusations of Anti-Gay Discrimination and Retaliation Against Pennsauken (NJ) School District in Federal Lawsuit
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Camden Vicinage
Camden Vicinage
D.V., et al. v. Pennsauken School District, et al.
C.A.
No. 1:12-cv-07646-JEI-JS
No. 1:12-cv-07646-JEI-JS
Sept
18, 2013, Philadelphia, PA /LGBT News/ For most families, back to school is a time of anticipation and
excitement. But for the Vandergrift
family, discussions about school trigger a groundswell of emotion and a wide
variety of difficult memories. Since the
2010-11 school year, the Vandergrifts have worked tirelessly to secure an
appropriate education for the youngest member of the family, DV, a child with
autism and generalized anxiety disorder.
18, 2013, Philadelphia, PA /LGBT News/ For most families, back to school is a time of anticipation and
excitement. But for the Vandergrift
family, discussions about school trigger a groundswell of emotion and a wide
variety of difficult memories. Since the
2010-11 school year, the Vandergrifts have worked tirelessly to secure an
appropriate education for the youngest member of the family, DV, a child with
autism and generalized anxiety disorder.
As a result of their efforts advocating for DV, the
Vandergrifts have been in dispute with the Pennsauken School District in
Southern New Jersey. The Vandergrift
family allegedly encountered a pattern of resistance, which grew increasingly
contentious as the issues DV faced in his educational environment became more
problematic.
Vandergrifts have been in dispute with the Pennsauken School District in
Southern New Jersey. The Vandergrift
family allegedly encountered a pattern of resistance, which grew increasingly
contentious as the issues DV faced in his educational environment became more
problematic.
According
to the lawsuit, while the Vandergrifts continued to work on DV’s behalf,
representatives of the Pennsauken School District allegedly subjected members
of the family to several incidents of retaliation for advocating for a disabled
individual, as well as anti-gay discrimination. The lawsuit alleges that these
tactics were intended to intimidate the Vandergrift family so they would stop
advocating for DV.
to the lawsuit, while the Vandergrifts continued to work on DV’s behalf,
representatives of the Pennsauken School District allegedly subjected members
of the family to several incidents of retaliation for advocating for a disabled
individual, as well as anti-gay discrimination. The lawsuit alleges that these
tactics were intended to intimidate the Vandergrift family so they would stop
advocating for DV.
The Vandergrift family subsequently filed a complaint
in Federal Court alleging retaliation and discrimination.
in Federal Court alleging retaliation and discrimination.
What
follows here is a narrative summary of the information alleged in the complaint
filed by Amelia Carolla, Esq., on behalf of
members of the Vandergrift (Plaintiffs)
follows here is a narrative summary of the information alleged in the complaint
filed by Amelia Carolla, Esq., on behalf of
members of the Vandergrift (Plaintiffs)
DV is a child with autism and generalized anxiety
disorder. As a result, he has severe
deficits in socialization, communication and motor skills. DV also suffers from general learning
disabilities. He had a tumultuous
childhood with his parents, resulting in DV residing with his paternal
grandmother, Betty Vandergrift (Betty), who is his legal guardian.
disorder. As a result, he has severe
deficits in socialization, communication and motor skills. DV also suffers from general learning
disabilities. He had a tumultuous
childhood with his parents, resulting in DV residing with his paternal
grandmother, Betty Vandergrift (Betty), who is his legal guardian.
As DV’s legal guardian, Betty is the person who
initiated legal action on behalf of members of the Vandergrift family. Thomas Vandergrift (Thomas) is DV’s Uncle.
initiated legal action on behalf of members of the Vandergrift family. Thomas Vandergrift (Thomas) is DV’s Uncle.
Betty asked Thomas to assist her in advocating for
DV’s educational rights. Thomas is
openly gay, and at the time was employed as a teacher in a New Jersey public
school. Throughout the interactions with
the Vandergrift family, Pennsauken School District representatives were aware
of Thomas’s sexual orientation.
DV’s educational rights. Thomas is
openly gay, and at the time was employed as a teacher in a New Jersey public
school. Throughout the interactions with
the Vandergrift family, Pennsauken School District representatives were aware
of Thomas’s sexual orientation.
Because of his disabilities, DV is entitled to a
Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), as well as under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), as well as under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Beginning during the 2010-11 school year and
extending through 2011-12, DV attended academic programs in the Pennsauken
School District. During that time,
representatives from the District classified DV as having a specific learning
disability in the area of math.
extending through 2011-12, DV attended academic programs in the Pennsauken
School District. During that time,
representatives from the District classified DV as having a specific learning
disability in the area of math.
In January of 2011, Betty obtained an evaluation
indicating that DV is autistic. Two
additional evaluations, conducted in March and June 2012, respectively,
confirmed DV’s autism diagnosis. Despite receiving three opinions from accredited medical
experts confirming a diagnosis of autism, the Pennsauken School District refused
to accept DV’s diagnosis. Consequently,
they neglected to provide him with an appropriate education guaranteed to
students with autism.
indicating that DV is autistic. Two
additional evaluations, conducted in March and June 2012, respectively,
confirmed DV’s autism diagnosis. Despite receiving three opinions from accredited medical
experts confirming a diagnosis of autism, the Pennsauken School District refused
to accept DV’s diagnosis. Consequently,
they neglected to provide him with an appropriate education guaranteed to
students with autism.
Betty started administrative
proceedings related to the School District’s failure to provide DV with a FAPE
during the 2010-11 and 2011-12 academic years.
As DV’s guardian, Betty’s intent when commencing the administrative
process was simple and straightforward – assure that the School District would
provide a program to meet DV’s needs as a student with autism, in addition to
his general learning disabilities.
proceedings related to the School District’s failure to provide DV with a FAPE
during the 2010-11 and 2011-12 academic years.
As DV’s guardian, Betty’s intent when commencing the administrative
process was simple and straightforward – assure that the School District would
provide a program to meet DV’s needs as a student with autism, in addition to
his general learning disabilities.
To meet this end, Betty and Thomas met
with the School District’s child study team on August 18, 2011 with the specific
request that they revise DV’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) and
provide him with additional services for the 2011-12 school year.
with the School District’s child study team on August 18, 2011 with the specific
request that they revise DV’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) and
provide him with additional services for the 2011-12 school year.
At this meeting, Betty and Thomas
explained several of DV’s behaviors and deficits that concerned them. Representatives of the School District
insisted they had not noticed this type of behavior at school, and also
disputed DV’s diagnosis of autism. The
only behavior noted by the child study team was related to DV’s personal
hygiene, to which Betty and Thomas responded by relating DV’s challenges with
self-grooming – a common characteristic of children with autism.
explained several of DV’s behaviors and deficits that concerned them. Representatives of the School District
insisted they had not noticed this type of behavior at school, and also
disputed DV’s diagnosis of autism. The
only behavior noted by the child study team was related to DV’s personal
hygiene, to which Betty and Thomas responded by relating DV’s challenges with
self-grooming – a common characteristic of children with autism.
Thomas specifically stated to the child
study team that several family members, including himself, Betty and DV’s grandfather,
all tried to teach DV how to wash himself in the shower.
study team that several family members, including himself, Betty and DV’s grandfather,
all tried to teach DV how to wash himself in the shower.
The next day (Aug 19, 2011),
investigators from the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS)
visited DV at home. DYFS reported that
members of the child study team called their
offices multiple times over the preceding 24 hours to report that DV was the
victim of inappropriate / sexual touching by his openly gay Uncle, Thomas
Vandergrift. DYFS conducted an
investigation, including interviews with DV and his sister, as well as an evaluation
of DV’s body. DYFS found all allegations
to be unsubstantiated, but the process was very upsetting and disruptive for
the entire family.
investigators from the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS)
visited DV at home. DYFS reported that
members of the child study team called their
offices multiple times over the preceding 24 hours to report that DV was the
victim of inappropriate / sexual touching by his openly gay Uncle, Thomas
Vandergrift. DYFS conducted an
investigation, including interviews with DV and his sister, as well as an evaluation
of DV’s body. DYFS found all allegations
to be unsubstantiated, but the process was very upsetting and disruptive for
the entire family.
Though not disclosed at the time of the
home visit, the names of the child study team members who contacted DYFS about
Thomas Vandergrift were released when the federal court judge signed an order
permitting their review. The child study
team members, now specifically named in the federal lawsuit, were Chris Lavell
(Case Manager), Marty DeLape (Director of Special Education) and Holly Taylor
(Social Worker).
home visit, the names of the child study team members who contacted DYFS about
Thomas Vandergrift were released when the federal court judge signed an order
permitting their review. The child study
team members, now specifically named in the federal lawsuit, were Chris Lavell
(Case Manager), Marty DeLape (Director of Special Education) and Holly Taylor
(Social Worker).
When the allegations were made, members
of the child study team had no specific facts to support allegations of any
inappropriate acts or behavior involving DV or Thomas. Undeterred by the truth, Chris Lavell, Marty
DeLape and Holly Taylor contacted DYFS and proceeded to level false allegations
against Thomas. Notably, no one from the
School District reported that either of DV’s grandparents had inappropriately
touched him. They selected Thomas as their target because he is gay and because he
was advocating on behalf of a disabled student. This was a clear instance of retaliation by
discrimination that was intended to intimidate the Vandergrift family so they
would stop advocating for DV.
of the child study team had no specific facts to support allegations of any
inappropriate acts or behavior involving DV or Thomas. Undeterred by the truth, Chris Lavell, Marty
DeLape and Holly Taylor contacted DYFS and proceeded to level false allegations
against Thomas. Notably, no one from the
School District reported that either of DV’s grandparents had inappropriately
touched him. They selected Thomas as their target because he is gay and because he
was advocating on behalf of a disabled student. This was a clear instance of retaliation by
discrimination that was intended to intimidate the Vandergrift family so they
would stop advocating for DV.
Due to Thomas’s employment as a public
school educator, he must report any and all allegations of child abuse to his
current Superintendent and disclose that information when applying for future
teaching positions – no matter how unfounded the allegations may be. Even a baseless claim of child abuse could
cost Thomas a job, his reputation and minimize future opportunities for growth
and advancement in the field.
school educator, he must report any and all allegations of child abuse to his
current Superintendent and disclose that information when applying for future
teaching positions – no matter how unfounded the allegations may be. Even a baseless claim of child abuse could
cost Thomas a job, his reputation and minimize future opportunities for growth
and advancement in the field.
As the 2011-12 school year commenced,
Betty chose to hire a psychotherapist to work with DV who had no affiliation
with the school district – as opposed to working with the school’s guidance
counselor as indicated in DV’s IEP.
Betty took this step and absorbed the expense because the family feared
further retaliatory action.
Betty chose to hire a psychotherapist to work with DV who had no affiliation
with the school district – as opposed to working with the school’s guidance
counselor as indicated in DV’s IEP.
Betty took this step and absorbed the expense because the family feared
further retaliatory action.
In January 2012, DV reported to his
private therapist, Dr. Bruce Banford, the first in a long list of incidents of
physical abuse, taunting and bullying suffered at the hands of other
students.
private therapist, Dr. Bruce Banford, the first in a long list of incidents of
physical abuse, taunting and bullying suffered at the hands of other
students.
The School District was given actual
notice of every incident of bullying and harassment – and the staff repeatedly
minimized the severity of each incident, and neglected to intervene on DV’s
behalf to guarantee his safety.
notice of every incident of bullying and harassment – and the staff repeatedly
minimized the severity of each incident, and neglected to intervene on DV’s
behalf to guarantee his safety.
After several months of back-and-forth,
Betty was finally able to secure a meeting with School District representatives
on May 16 and 17, 2012. On these dates,
Betty, Thomas, DV’s grandfather and Dr. Banford, expressed their concerns
regarding the bullying, focusing on other students repeatedly calling DV
“gay.” Several staff members were
present, including the Superintendent and a school psychologist employed by the
School District, Billie Berenbaum.
Betty was finally able to secure a meeting with School District representatives
on May 16 and 17, 2012. On these dates,
Betty, Thomas, DV’s grandfather and Dr. Banford, expressed their concerns
regarding the bullying, focusing on other students repeatedly calling DV
“gay.” Several staff members were
present, including the Superintendent and a school psychologist employed by the
School District, Billie Berenbaum.
Shockingly, Berenbaum acknowledged that
it was commonplace for students to call one another “gay” in DV’s class – and that
DV should not get upset about it because it was not a “big deal.” Her dismissive attitude toward the derogatory
use of the word was so cavalier that the Superintendent ordered her out of the
room halfway through the meeting. Unfortunately,
the end result of the meeting was that the School District opted not to take
action to provide a safe educational environment for DV.
it was commonplace for students to call one another “gay” in DV’s class – and that
DV should not get upset about it because it was not a “big deal.” Her dismissive attitude toward the derogatory
use of the word was so cavalier that the Superintendent ordered her out of the
room halfway through the meeting. Unfortunately,
the end result of the meeting was that the School District opted not to take
action to provide a safe educational environment for DV.
After DV was out of school for several
months with no communication from the School District, it became clear that
they did not conduct a timely bullying investigation as required under the
School District’s own anti-bullying policy or New Jersey’s Anti-Bullying law
(N.J.A.C. 18A:37-14 et. al.). In August
2012, Betty and the School District came to an agreement to resolve the
question of DV’s placement at a private special education school. Despite substantial setbacks since first
engaging with the School District, this action began to address the family’s
concern about whether DV would have access to a FAPE to continue his formal
education.
months with no communication from the School District, it became clear that
they did not conduct a timely bullying investigation as required under the
School District’s own anti-bullying policy or New Jersey’s Anti-Bullying law
(N.J.A.C. 18A:37-14 et. al.). In August
2012, Betty and the School District came to an agreement to resolve the
question of DV’s placement at a private special education school. Despite substantial setbacks since first
engaging with the School District, this action began to address the family’s
concern about whether DV would have access to a FAPE to continue his formal
education.
At
issue in the complaint filed in Federal Court are alleged retaliatory and discriminatory
tactics executed by the School District to intimidate the Vandergrift
family. A trial date has yet to be
scheduled.
issue in the complaint filed in Federal Court are alleged retaliatory and discriminatory
tactics executed by the School District to intimidate the Vandergrift
family. A trial date has yet to be
scheduled.
Please direct legal questions to:
Amelia Carolla
Reisman Carolla Gran, LLP
19 Chestnut Street
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
856.354.0021
Editor’s note:
The information above is presented “as is” and “as available”, and we expressly disclaim any liability for errors and omissions regarding it.
The LGBT News welcomes letters from readers for possible publication. Letters should be no more than 300 words. We are also interested in your views on local, state, national and international LGBTQ issues. Columns usually run 500 to 700 words. Email your letter/column (with photos where possible) at [email protected]
To gain exposure for your LGBTQ-related events, services or products, please check our Submit a press release section.
1 comments:
Anonymous
says
October 5, 2013 at 5:05 AM
How can you help? Take ACTION! Call, fax, email, send a letter! For more information:
https://www.facebook.com/StopPennsauken