The mother of a Texas teen with intellectual and emotional disabilities has lost a federal lawsuit she filed following the tasing of her son. The suit charged that the school district and school resource officer (SRO) violated the teen’s civil rights under the US Constitution, (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and discriminated against him under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The case, J.W. v Katy Independent School District, involves a 17-year-old Texas student with “an intellectual disability” and “an emotional disturbance” that impacted his daily functioning, ability to communicate, control his emotions, and access regular educational services without accommodations. Following a period of escalating verbal and physical agitation, a school resource officer was brought in. Aware that the student had disabilities, the SRO deployed a taser, causing the student to “scream and fall to his knees.” The tasing continued for 15 seconds with the SRO using a “drive stunning method,” tasing the student in the back after he was lying face down on the ground and not struggling.
As a result of the tasing, the student urinated, defecated, and vomited on himself. After the student was handcuffed, school officials called the school nurse and subsequently paramedics to treat the student, then contacted the boy’s mother.
Following this incident, the student’s mother kept him home from school for several months because she feared for his safety and because the tasing caused him intense anxiety and PTSD. She filed a claim against the school district, arguing that the SRO intentionally discriminated against her son based on his disability, and the school district failed to accommodate his disability.
On the matter of discrimination, the court found in favor of the school district. While noting that the tasing was arguably excessive, the court nevertheless concluded that the mother did not provide evidence that the SRO would not have tased a non-disabled student in a similar situation. The SRO claimed that he tased the student based “on a desire to keep him safe inside the school because of the vulnerabilities caused by his disability.” The evidence and body cam recording did not support this version of the encounter.
On the matter of the claim of failure to accommodate, the judge also rejected the mother’s argument. While the SRO admitted that he had prior knowledge of the student’s disability, there was no evidence that he had notice of its resulting limitations or necessary accommodations because he was not present at any meetings concerning the student’s limitations and/or accommodations for the student’s disability, nor were the limitations or accommodations “open, obvious and apparent.”
The court emphasized that the SRO’s use of a taser in this situation was poor judgment, especially after the student had ceased struggling. The decision suggested that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA are not always the most appropriate way to address “all unreasonable, inappropriate, unprofessional, and/or unduly harsh conduct by public agents.”
The federal panel in the 5th Circuit affirmed the decision on appeal.
