5th Circuit Holds that SRO’s Use of Taser was Not Discriminatory

October 26, 2023

Important Takeaway: Federal courts are now implementing the recent Supreme Court guidance that administrative remedies do not have to be exhausted for an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) claim if the relief sought is not available under the IDEA. For an act to be discriminatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it must be motivated by more than deliberate indifference to one’s disability.

Facts: A school resource officer (SRO) tased a 17-year-old special education student who physically struggled with school staff while attempting to leave the school after a violent episode. One day the student became angry after playing a card game with another student and punched the other student in the chest before leaving the classroom. The student then tried to enter a “chill out” room, which was a designated classroom that the school permitted him to use to regulate his emotions as an accommodation. The student became angry when another student was already in the room, threw a desk across the room, kicked the door, and headed toward the school exit. The defendant SRO arrived on the scene after hearing calls for help over the school radio.

The SRO claimed that he knew the student was probably a special education student, but did not know anything about his specific disability. A security guard was attempting to de-escalate the student and prevent him from leaving while the student was visibly upset. A struggle ensued when the security guard attempted to hold the door shut to keep the student inside and the SRO then moved toward the student and the security guard. The SRO was wearing a bodycam that captured the incident. The bodycam footage went dark, and the SRO and security guard were both telling the student to calm down. The SRO then threatened to tase the student and the student was screaming that he wanted to go home.

The bodycam footage then shows the SRO backing away while another female SRO and the guard try to hold the student and the SRO says to let him go. As the student walked outside the SRO fired his taser and used it for approximately 15 seconds total. The tasing continued after the student was lying face down on the ground and not struggling. As a result of the tasing the student urinated, defecated, and vomited on himself. The female SRO then handcuffed the student, and the school nurse and paramedics were called to treat the student. The student’s mother was notified of the incident.

The student’s mother then kept the student home for several months because she feared for his safety at school and the tasing caused him intense anxiety and PTSD. The mother then met with the school district and after filed a petition with the Texas Education Agency under the IDEA and Section 1983.

The student’s mother sued the SRO and the school district claiming that her son’s constitutional rights had been violated under Section 1983 and that he had been discriminated against because of his disability under the IDEA, the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The District Court held that the IDEA claims had to be dismissed because of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In light of the recent Supreme Court decision, the 5^th Circuit held that the claim was not precluded because the remedies sought were compensatory and punitive and could not be sought under the administrative procedures of the IDEA.

The 5^th Circuit held that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the school district on the ADA and Section 504 claims because the mother failed to produce evidence of intentional discrimination. They also held the parents would not be successful on an IDEA claim because they could not show the event occurred because the SRO was discriminating against the student because of his disability. They explained that the SRO tasing the student was not driven by indifference or hostility toward the student’s disability and was motivated instead by a desire to keep the student safe inside the school because of vulnerabilities caused by his disability. While the court acknowledged that the incident was inappropriate, it was not driven by discrimination.

What this means: Federal courts are now implementing the new standard from the Supreme Court that claims under the IDEA are not precluded due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies if the relief they are seeking is not one provided for under the IDEA. In the 5^th Circuit, use of force by an SRO on a special education student may be upheld if the reason for the use of force was not discriminatory

Read the case here: J.W. v. Paley, 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States, August 28, 2023. Read it here.

As you consider these and other issues, we recommend you speak with your school lawyer or contact Bea, Megan, Beth, and Kevin at 406-542-1300 to discuss these issues.