Anatomy of
a Case:
Burriola v. Greater Toledo YMCA
Background
Jordan Burriola
is an eight-year old child with autism. He was enrolled in the day care
program since January 1999. He attended the M.O.D.E.L. Community School
since the fall of 1998. Jordan exhibited some violent and destructive
behaviors at the YMCA daycare program. With appropriate modifications
by the day care staff, these behaviors could be eliminated or reduced.
The school
trained two staff members in simple techniques that would work with
Jordan. Although these supports were to be implemented at the day care
center, defendant, Kathy Miley, the Director of Family Services for
the West Family YMCA “instructed the staff not to implement any of the
supports.” Two weeks after the last staff member trained by M.O.D.E.L
left the center, Jordan was terminated from the program.
Several
days later, this suit
was filed alleging violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Read
the Complaint filed in Jordan's case)
The plaintiff
sought an injunction requiring the day care center to reinstate
Jordan into the program. This was not an IDEA case.
The Court
heard four days of testimony and oral
argument.
On January
3, 2001, Judge James G. Carr of the U. S. District Court, Northern District
of Ohio, Western Division, issued a scathing opinion against the Greater
Toledo YMCA on behalf of Jordan Burriola in Burriola
v. Greater Toledo YMCA, et. al. (case number 3:00CV7593)
The Court
discussed the facts of the case in detail and related them to the factors
that must be balanced in determining whether to issue an injunction:
“(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the preliminary injunction
will succeed on the merits of the claim; (2) whether the party seeking
the injunction will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction;
(3) the probability that granting the injunction will cause substantial
harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest is advanced by the
issuance of the injunction.”
We
want to thank Tom Zraik, Jordan's attorney, who provided us with
the pleadings and his
analysis of the case.
Links
to documents in Burriola v. Greater Toledo YMCA
Complaint
(in pdf)
Motion
for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Supprt
(in pdf)
Closing
Arguments by Attorney Thomas J. Zraik (in pdf)
Why
This Case is Important An Analysis by Thomas J. Zraik, Esq.
Meet Tom Zraik,
Jordan’s Attorney
After the
decision came out, Pete talked to Tom Zraik, Jordan’s attorney.
Like Pete, Tom is married to a licensed clinical social worker.
Tom has represented children in special education cases for over twenty
years. Tom
is a member of the Council of Parents
Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) (www.copaa.net). Tom
also subscribes to The
Special Ed Advocate newsletter.
Tom has
a long relationship with the disability community in Toledo and with
The Ability Center of Greater
Toledo. They are proud of this case and of Tom's accomplishments.
(They are also his landlord!)
This case
and the Analysis were first discussed in the January 10, 2001 issue
and then the February 15, 2001 issue of The
Special Ed Advocate, our free online newsletter.
Contact
information:
Thomas J.
Zraik, Esq.
5579 Monroe Street
Sylvania, OH 43560
Phone:
419-882-2559; Fax:419-882-1425
Email: ojur@glasscity.net
Representing
Children with Autism: More Resources
In
RE ISD 318,
MN Review Decision (autism, Lovaas, ABA
therapy) Parent's counsel was Sonja Kerr who wrote the Letter to Damon,
the new young lawyer handling a special ed case for the first time.
The letter is in our "Advocacy Library."
Stefan
Jaynes v. Newport News , U. S. District Court, Eastern District
of Virginia. Decision in case about child with autism; includes discussion
of statutes of limitations, procedural safeguards, notice requirements,
damages and reimbursement. (September 7, 2000) In
pdf In
Word
Bd.
of Education of Kanawha (WV) v. Michael M. IEPs, "appropriate",
burden of proof, autism, reimbursement for ABA program. Excellent discussion
of an "appropriate" program; recommended reading for attorneys who represent
children with disabilities and their witnesses.
Order
about appropriateness of home-based Lovaas /ABA program (August
2000).
Daniel
Lawyer v. Chesterfield School Board, U. S. District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia. Daniel's mother worked with Pete in preparing
this case through Due Process, Review, and trial in Federal Court. She
is now one of the top administrators in the Protection and Advocacy
agency in Virginia. The decision includes a good discussion about extended
school year, (ESY), regression and recoupment, autism and neurological
windows of opportunity.
Mr.
X v. NY, U. S. District Court. An excellent case with a comprehensive
discussion about autism, Lovaas, ABA therapy and TEEACH.
T.
H. v. Palatine, U. S. District Court.Excellent
decision in an ABA case that includes a thorough discussion of the IEP
process, the need to individualize the IEP, methodology and placement
issues. (This decision is in pdf format)
Weiss
v. School Board of Hillsborough County - U. S. Court of Appeals
for the 11th Circuit, May 13, 1998. (damages, procedural violations;
denial of FAPE)
To Caselaw
Library
To Main
Law Library
