Pennsauken (NJ) School District Named in Federal Lawsuit Case # 1:12-cv-07646-JE IJSFamily Advocating for Autistic Student Alleges

Retaliation and Anti-Gay Discri mination by School District Personnel. Philadelphia, PA, September 17, 2013 -- For most families, back to school is a t ime of anticipation and excitement. But for the Vandergrift family, discussions about school trigger a groundswell of emotion and a wide variety of difficult me mories. Since the 2010-11 school year, the Vandergrifts have worked tirelessly t o secure an appropriate education for the youngest member of the family, DV, a c hild with autism and generalized anxiety disorder. As a result of their efforts advocating for DV, the Vandergrifts have been in di spute with the Pennsauken School District in Southern New Jersey. The Vandergrif t family allegedly encountered a pattern of resistance, which grew increasingly contentious as the issues DV faced in his educational environment became more pr oblematic. According to the lawsuit, while the Vandergrifts continued to work on DVs behalf, representatives of the Pennsauken School District allegedly subjected members o f the family to several incidents of retaliation for advocating for a disabled i ndividual, as well as anti-gay discrimination. The lawsuit alleges that these ta ctics were intended to intimidate the Vandergrift family so they would stop advo cating for DV. The Vandergrift family subsequently filed a complaint in Federal Court alleging retaliation and discrimination. What follows here is a narrative summary of the information alleged in the compl aint filed by Amelia Carolla, Esq., on behalf of members of the Vandergrift (Pla intiffs) 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 suffer s from general learning disabilities. He had a tumultuous childhood with his par ents, resulting in DV residing with his paternal grandmother, Betty Vandergrift (Betty), who is his legal guardian. As DVs legal guardian, Betty is the person who initiated legal action on behalf o f members of the Vandergrift family. Thomas Vandergrift (Thomas) is DVs Uncle. Betty asked Thomas to assist her in advocating for DVs 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 Sc hool District representatives were aware of Thomass 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 Ind ividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Beginning during the 2010-11 school year and extending through 2011-12, DV atten ded academic programs in the Pennsauken School District. During that time, repre sentatives from the District classified DV as having a specific learning disabil ity 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, co nfirmed DVs autism diagnosis. Despite receiving three opinions from accredited me dical experts confirming a diagnosis of autism, the Pennsauken School District r

efused to accept DVs diagnosis. Consequently, they neglected to provide him with an appropriate education guaranteed to students with autism. Betty started administrative proceedings related to the School Districts failure to provide DV with a FAPE during the 2010-11 and 2011-12 academic years. As DVs g uardian, Bettys intent when commencing the administrative process was simple and straightforward assure that the School District would provide a program to meet DVs needs as a student with autism, in addition to his general learning disabilit ies. To meet this end, Betty and Thomas met with the School Districts child study team on August 18, 2011 with the specific request that they revise DVs Individualized Education Program (IEP) and provide him with additional services for the 2011-1 2 school year. At this meeting, Betty and Thomas explained several of DVs 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 DVs diagnosis of a utism. The only behavior noted by the child study team was related to DVs persona l hygiene, to which Betty and Thomas responded by relating DVs challenges with se lf-grooming a common characteristic of children with autism. Thomas specifically stated to the child study team that several family members, including himself, Betty and DVs grandfather, all tried to teach DV how to wash h imself 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 t he child study team called their offices multiple times over the preceding 24 ho urs to report that DV was the victim of inappropriate / sexual touching by his o penly gay Uncle, Thomas Vandergrift. DYFS conducted an investigation, including interviews with DV and his sister, as well as an evaluation of DVs body. DYFS fou nd 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 te am members, now specifically named in the federal lawsuit, were Chris Lavell (Ca se Manager), Marty DeLape (Director of Special Education) and Holly Taylor (Soci al 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 DVs grandparents had in appropriately touched him. They selected Thomas as their target because he is g ay and because he was advocating on behalf of a disabled student. This was a cle ar instance of retaliation by discrimination that was intended to intimidate the Vandergrift family so they would stop advocating for DV. Due to Thomass employment as a public school educator, he must report any and all allegations of child abuse to his current Superintendent and disclose that info rmation 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 w

ork with DV who had no affiliation with the school district as opposed to workin g with the schools guidance counselor as indicated in DVs IEP. Betty took this ste p and absorbed the expense because the family feared further retaliatory action. In January 2012, DV reported to his private therapist, Dr. Bruce Banford, the fi rst in a long list of incidents of physical abuse, taunting and bullying suffere d at the hands of other students. The School District was given actual notice of every incident of bullying and ha rassment and the staff repeatedly minimized the severity of each incident, and n eglected to intervene on DVs behalf to guarantee his safety. After several months of back-and-forth, Betty was finally able to secure a meeti ng with School District representatives on May 16 and 17, 2012. On these dates, Betty, Thomas, DVs grandfather and Dr. Banford, expressed their concerns regardin g the bullying, focusing on other students repeatedly calling DV gay. Several staf f members were present, including the Superintendent and a school psychologist e mployed by the School District, Billie Berenbaum. Shockingly, Berenbaum acknowledged that it was commonplace for students to call one another gay in DVs class and that DV should not get upset about it because it w as not a big deal. Her dismissive attitude toward the derogatory use of the word w as so cavalier that the Superintendent ordered her out of the room halfway throu gh 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 Sch ool District, it became clear that they did not conduct a timely bullying invest igation as required under the School Districts own anti-bullying policy or New Je rseys Anti-Bullying law (N.J.A.C. 18A:37-14 et. al.). In August 2012, Betty and t he School District came to an agreement to resolve the question of DVs placement at a private special education school. Despite substantial setbacks since first engaging with the School District, this action began to address the familys conce rn 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 dis criminatory tactics executed by the School District to intimidate the Vandergrif t family. A trial date has yet to be scheduled. Contact: Amelia Carolla Reisman Carolla Gran, LLP 19 Chestnut Street Haddonfield, NJ 08033 856-354-0021 acarolla@reismancarolla.com http://www.reismancarolla.com