Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-15-2009
Thomas Woodruff v. Hamilton Twp Pub Sch
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2439
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Thomas Woodruff v. Hamilton Twp Pub Sch" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 2023.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/2023
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2439
___________
THOMAS WOODRUFF; MICHELLE WOODRUFF,
Individually and on behalf of their minor son B.W.,
Appellants
v.
HAMILTON TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS; FRED
DONATUCCI, Superintendent; MICHAEL MULDOON,
Principal; PEDRO BERTONES, Vice Principal; DONNA HESS,
Section 504 Coordinator; DANIEL WEBER, Language Arts;
JOAN CARR, Mathematics; KELLI COSTELLO, Geography,
HAMILTON TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-03815)
District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 21, 2008
Before: MCKEE, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 15, 2009)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Thomas and Michelle Woodruff appeal from an order of the District Court
dismissing their Amended Complaint. Finding no error, we will affirm. Because the
parties are familiar with the relevant facts and the procedural background, we will not
discuss them in detail.
The Woodruffs, parents of a minor child, B.W., filed a civil action pro se in United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging numerous causes of action.
B.W. suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The circumstances giving
rise to this action may be summarized as follows. B.W. was enrolled in the seventh grade
at William Davies Middle School in Mays Landing, New Jersey during the 2005-06
academic year. After receiving his yearbook, B.W. crossed out pictures of certain
students. Another student saw this and asked him what he was doing, and B.W. replied
that his yearbook was “the book of life. If your picture is crossed out you are a mere
memory. I hope you have experienced the pain and agony that I have experienced.” The
student reported B.W., and, for his actions, he was suspended for the final four days of
the school year. The Vice-Principal also initiated harassment charges against him with
county juvenile authorities.
By way of explaining his behavior, B.W. told his parents that, just prior to the
yearbook incident, he had been humiliated in his language arts class by an assignment in
which fellow students were told by the teacher to write poems describing their classmates.
2
B.W.’s classmates described him as “fool,” “weird,” “goofy,” and “forgetful.” The
Woodruffs evidently tried to explain this to school officials. Unsatisfied with the
school’s response, the Woodruffs eventually filed a lawsuit. The School District
responded by serving notice of its intent to expel B.W. This notice arrived just prior to
the 2006-07 academic year. Before any hearing to expel could take place, the Woodruffs
withdrew B.W. and enrolled him in the eighth grade at a private school. Apparently,
B.W. had a successful, discipline-free year there, but when the Woodruffs attempted to
enroll him in the ninth grade for the 2007-08 academic year at Oakcrest High School in
the Greater Egg Harbor Public School District, that school refused to enroll him. The
Woodruffs later learned that Hamilton Township school officials had disclosed B.W.’s
file to Greater Egg Harbor school district officials.
After amending their original Complaint, the Woodruffs alleged in the main that
the Hamilton Township Public School District and its officials failed to provide B.W.
with a Free and Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) as required under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.,1 section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. § 1213, and that certain administrators and teachers at the Davies Middle School
discriminated against him and created a hostile environment in violation of the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1 et seq. (“NJLAD”). There was a
1
The IDEA was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act, effective July 1, 2005.
3
further attempt to assert common law counts for negligence and infliction of emotional
distress, an allegation of a procedural due process violation, and general allegations of
retaliation and harassment.
Early in the litigation, the District Court addressed whether the Woodruffs could
represent their son’s interests, because they are not attorneys, and parents may not
represent their minor children in the federal courts in this circuit, Osei-Afriyie by Osei-
Afriyie v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 937 F.2d 876, 882 (3d Cir. 1991) (“Where
[children] have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal
assistance so their rights may be fully protected”). As a result, the Woodruffs obtained an
attorney who filed a separate civil action, D.C. Civ. No. 07-cv-04135, against the Greater
Egg Harbor Public School District. That action was settled and B.W. was successfully
enrolled in Oakcrest. The District Court laid out for the Woodruffs the various options
for continuing with the instant civil action, including obtaining an attorney or continuing
with their claims only. The Woodruffs elected to file an amended complaint which
purported to raise their claims only. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint and the District Court granted the motion in an order entered on April 9, 2008.
This appeal followed.
We will affirm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.2 The
2
Because the Woodruffs are not attorneys, they may not represent B.W. on appeal,
Osei-Afriyie, 937 F.2d at 882-83. Therefore, they are proceeding on appeal only as to
their claims.
4
Woodruffs contend on appeal that the District Court erred (1) in its determination that
they cannot prosecute a civil action on behalf of B.W. except in the circumstance set forth
in Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., --- U.S. ----, 127 S. Ct. 1994 (2007); (2) in
dismissing their IDEA, ADA and Section 504 claims for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies; (3) in dismissing their negligence and emotional distress claims; and (4) in
overlooking their harassment and retaliation claims. After careful review, we have
determined that these contentions lack merit.
The District Court properly concluded that, under Winkelman, 127 S. Ct. 1994, the
Woodruffs may prosecute their legally cognizable interests in B.W.’s FAPE without an
attorney, but Winkelman is limited to the IDEA context and does not permit them to
litigate the NJLAD, procedural due process, or common law counts alleged in their
Amended Complaint. In Winkelman, the United States Supreme Court held that, because
parents have substantive rights under the IDEA which are not limited to procedural and
reimbursement-related matters and which they may enforce by prosecuting actions on
their own behalf, the circuit court in that case erred when it dismissed the parents’ appeal
for lack of counsel. The Court reserved the question whether the IDEA entitles parents to
litigate their child’s claims pro se, id. at 2007, and thus Winkelman does not translate into
a broad right to pursue any statutory or common law claims on a child’s behalf. With the
exception of an IDEA action on their own behalf, the Woodruffs may not represent B.W.
in the federal courts in this circuit, Osei-Afriyie, 937 F.2d at 882. The Woodruffs were
5
given the opportunity by the District Court to identify which claims they brought in their
own right. They chose to file an amended complaint purporting to assert their claims
only, but the District Court concluded that the injuries alleged simply were not personal to
them, and we agree. The District Court overlooked no counts in determining that the
Amended Complaint would have to be dismissed without prejudice to the extent that
Osei-Afriyie prevents the Woodruffs from litigating other statutory or common law
claims on B.W.’s behalf.3
Although Winkelman, 127 S. Ct. at 2004, permits the Woodruffs to represent
themselves in an IDEA action on their own behalf, the District Court properly dismissed
their IDEA, ADA and Section 504 claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
As thoroughly explained by the District Court, the IDEA ordinarily requires that a party
exhaust administrative remedies, see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f) (providing for an impartial due
process hearing); see id. at § 1415(g) (providing for appeal of any such decision to State
educational agency), prior to bringing suit in federal court, id. at § 1415(i)(2)(A). The
Woodruffs do not contend that they pursued their administrative remedies prior to
bringing this civil action. Instead, they contend that they cannot obtain the money
3
We conclude that the harassment and retaliation allegations are properly viewed as
part of the NJLAD count. To the extent that the Woodruffs sought to bring a claim for
negligent infliction of emotional distress based on a theory of bystander liability, their
claim is legally insufficient and properly dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), because New Jersey requires that the minor child suffer death or a
serious physical injury before a parent can maintain such an action. See Mansour v.
Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc., 890 A.2d 336, 340 (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div. 2006).
6
damages they seek for their IDEA, ADA and Section 504 claims through the
administrative process and thus exhaustion would be futile.
We are not persuaded. We have held that “plaintiffs may ... be excused from the
pursuit of administrative remedies where they allege systemic legal deficiencies and,
correspondingly, request system-wide relief that cannot be provided (or even addressed)
through the administrative process,” Beth V. by Yvonne V. v. Carroll, 87 F.3d 80, 89 (3d
Cir. 1996), but this exception is limited. In the usual case, exhaustion serves the purpose
of developing the record for review on appeal, cf. S.H. v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of
City of Newark, 336 F.3d 260, 269-70 (3d Cir. 2003) (discussing importance of
Administrative Law Judge fact finding in IDEA cases), encourages parents and the local
school district to work together to formulate an individualized plan for a child’s
education, and allows the education agencies to apply their expertise and correct their
own mistakes, see McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 194-95 (1969). Furthermore,
private placement and reimbursement for private school tuition are available to remedy
violations of the IDEA. Ridgewood Bd. Of Educ. v. N.E. ex rel. M.E., 172 F.3d 238,
248-249 & n.7 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S.
7 (1993)). Compensatory education also is available. Id. at 249-50 & n.9. The District
Court concluded, and we agree, that an Administrative Law Judge would be able to
provide the Woodruffs with appropriate relief if they prevail at the due process hearing.
The Woodruffs’ request for money damages presumably includes reimbursement for the
7
year of private school tuition they incurred. They are thus not excused from exhausting
their administrative remedies.4
Finally, we agree with the District Court that the retaliation count, to the extent
that it is not subsumed within the NJLAD count, is barred under the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, because there is no private cause
of action under FERPA’s confidentiality provisions, Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S.
273, 287 (2002), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not a vehicle for a FERPA claim, id. at 288.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court dismissing
the amended complaint. The Appellees’ motion to file a supplemental appendix and
expand the record is granted.5
4
The Woodruffs’ additional contention that they are excused from exhausting
administrative remedies because they did not receive adequate notice of their rights lacks
merit for the reasons given by the District Court.
5
In seeking leave to expand the record, see Fed. R. App. Pro. 10(e), the Appellees
have called our attention to one item germane to the District Court’s dismissal for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies: a State of New Jersey Department of Education Due
Process Hearing Acknowledgment dated July 25, 2008, indicating that the Woodruffs are
pursuing their administrative remedies.
8