The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the appeal of a former high school athlete, who claimed that after he suffered multiple concussions that the school district failed to provide appropriate academic accommodations.
In so ruling, the panel found that the plaintiff had signed a settlement agreement, which precluded his claim, even though his allegations were seemingly unrelated to those made in the settlement. The panel, however, concluded that “the gravamen” of the complaint aligned with the claims that he voluntarily dismissed in reaching a settlement.
Robert Wellman, Jr., attended high school in the Butler Area School District. He suffered a head injury while playing flag football in his freshman physical education class. After school that day, Wellman attended football practice, where he suffered additional head injuries. The following day, Wellman saw his doctor and later underwent a CT scan, which revealed that he had sustained a concussion. Wellman allegedly suffered “pain” and experienced “staring spells, trouble sleeping, and difficulty concentrating.”
Wellman returned to school, but his mother asked the school to assist him until his concussion healed. Wellman’s mother requested that Wellman be taken out of his German and physical education classes, that he be given extra study halls, and that the football coach not allow him to engage in any unsuitable physical activity. Rather than allow him to rest during his extra study halls, however, the teachers allegedly required him to take make-up exams. Wellman alleged that the school’s indifference to his need for accommodations increased his stress and aggravated his cognitive problems.
After performing an EEG test, Wellman’s doctor wrote a letter asking the school to provide Wellman with academic accommodations, specifically tutors and more time to complete his assignments. The school allegedly ignored these requests.
A few weeks later, Wellman attended a high school football game. Before the game, Wellman’s mother allegedly told the football coach that Wellman had a concussion, was not cleared to participate in the game, and should not be exposed to any possibility of physical contact. Despite this alleged conversation, the football coach asked Wellman to hold one of the markers on the sidelines. Wellman was not wearing any protective gear. During the game, a player in full uniform ran into Wellman and knocked him over, causing another head injury.
After this incident, Wellman’s concussion symptoms worsened, and he experienced severe headaches, problems focusing, and exhaustion. A CT scan revealed that he had post-concussive syndrome. Wellman began to miss school because of his symptoms and medical appointments, and when he was able to attend school, his teachers allegedly refused to provide accommodations for him. As a result, Wellman suffered significant stress, embarrassment, and anxiety, according to the complaint.
The panel went on recount several more allegations that seemed to suggest a failure to accommodate, leading Wellman to eventually withdraw from the school and enroll in private school, from which he eventually graduated.
Wellman and his parents filed a due process complaint with the Pennsylvania Department of Education against the School District, requesting a hearing, an Independent Education Plan, compensatory education for two years, and payment of Wellman’s private school tuition. Wellman and the School District eventually entered into a settlement and release agreement with respect to the claims in the due process case. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Wellmans released the School District and its employees from all rights, claims, causes of action, and damages of any nature including, but not limited to, any claim for legal fees and/or costs, which were pursued in the above-referenced case or which could have been pursued in the above-referenced case, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); or any other Federal or State statute, including the regulations promulgated thereunder.
Wellman thereafter filed a federal lawsuit in the Western District of Pennsylvania against the school district, alleging that it (1) violated the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, by refusing to accommodate him and treating him as if his injuries were fabricated or exaggerated; (2) violated the Rehabilitation Act and ADA by insisting that Wellman hold the marker on the football field, even though the school district was aware that he had a concussion and should not have been exposed to unnecessary physical risk; and (3) sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of Wellman’s equal protection rights by failing to accommodate him, retaliating against him because he requested accommodations, and treating him differently from other disabled students.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). In the aftermath of the court’s decision in Batchelor v. Rose Tree Media School District, 759 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2014), which held that exhaustion under the IDEA was a jurisdictional requirement, the district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, because (1) each of Wellman’s claims were related to the provision of a FAPE (or free appropriate public education), and he failed to exhaust his claims before a special education hearing officer; (2) the Settlement Agreement did not render the claims exhausted because it did not serve the key purpose of developing an underlying factual record; and (3) no exception to exhaustion was applicable to the case, given that no underlying factual record was developed, there were no allegations of an emergency situation requiring immediate resolution, and Wellman’s claims all principally related to his education.
Wellman appealed.
The Third Circuit wrote that “the outcome of this appeal is largely dictated by the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 137 S. Ct. 743, 197 L. Ed. 2d 46 (2017), which requires that we consider the ‘crux’ — the ‘gravamen’ — of the complaint to determine whether a plaintiff seeks relief for ‘denial of the IDEA’s core guarantee [of] . . . a free and appropriate education [FAPE,]’ id. at 748; if so, then the plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies under the IDEA. Because the gravamen of each count in Wellman’s complaint seeks relief for the denial of a FAPE, Wellman would typically be required to exhaust his claims. Wellman concedes, however, that he released all claims seeking relief based on the denial of a FAPE, and thus, he has no claims to exhaust. As a result, we will vacate the district court’s order dismissing the complaint without prejudice and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.”
Robert Wellman, Jr., v. Butler Area School District, Dr. John Wyllie, Individually, and in his capacity as principal of the Butler Area High School; 3d Cir.; No. 15-3394, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 25009; 12/12/17
