Home > Topics > Damages: Doe v. Withers Case

Damages  Against Teacher Who Refused to Implement an IEP:
Doe v. Withers

Print this page

Why did you put Doe v. Withers on your site? What is the relevance of a case that's more than 20 years old?

Pete responds: Your point is well taken.

Doe v. Withers is a 1992 case that was decided in part under United States Code Section 1983. (Thus the confusion about dates.)

Recently, several people who are looking for information about the case have sent emails to ask about the case.

Doe v. Withers is not posted on the Internet. I have discussed Doe v. Withers in articles on Wrightslaw. Several years ago, I wrote an analysis of Doe v. Withers for the Attention Deficit Disorder Forum on CompuServ.

Practically speaking, Doe v. Withers was a simple jury trial in a civil case that is unreported in State or Federal Court Reporters. But Doe v. Withers is also a landmark case.

Because it was jury verdict in a civil trial and was not appealed, Doe v. Withers is not reported in the usual publications that publish caselaw decisions - usually cases on appeal.

Why is this case significant?

Doe v. Withers was the first special education jury trial and the first special education dollar damages case.

Doe v. Withers is also significant because the child's history teacher (who was a member of the state General Assembly at the time) refused to follow the child's IEP, despite being told to do so by several school officials including the principal, special ed director, and special ed teacher.

Several school staff were not defendants in the civil suit because there was documentation that they told the history teacher to follow the IEP. Later, other defendants were dismissed because they also told Withers to follow the IEP.

Complaint in Doe v. Withers

Jury Order in Doe v. Withers

This case paved the way for later special ed damages cases, including W.B. v. Matula, a landmark case from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and Witte v. Clark County, a case from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Your e-mail tells me that we need to do a better job of providing background about the cases we post.

We appreciate your questions. I'm sure other readers had the same questions but did not write.

Last revised: 11/02/2015