A federal judge in Camden, New Jersey, has ruled that a school district violated federal law when it refused to enroll a homeless student because of a residency dispute.
The judge also said the student’s mother cannot bring pro se claims against the school district, but ordered the appointment of pro bono counsel to pursue claims against the school district on behalf of the mother and her son.
The rulings set the stage for the family to pursue damage claims against the school district. Although allegations of this type appear to be uncommon, the decision could be a cautionary tale for school districts which fail to strictly comply with federal laws concerning homeless students.
In Martin v. Piserchia, Chief U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb ruled that the Lenape Regional High School District violated the McKinney-Vento Act when it refused to enroll J.M. at Lenape High School.
The school district disputed claims by the mother, Sparkle Martin, that she and J.M. lived in a motel in the district’s sending community of Mount Laurel when they sought to enroll. Lenape maintained that Martin and J.M. were staying in a motel in the neighboring town of Maple Shade, making them ineligible to enroll at Lenape.
But McKinney-Vento calls for a district to immediately enroll a homeless student, even when there are questions about residency, Bumb said.
Martin brought the suit without representation, but Bumb said she could not bring claims pro se on behalf of her minor child.
The judge ordered appointment of pro bono counsel for Martin and J.M.
The judge said claims against Patricia Piserchia, the school employee who declined to enroll J.M., in her official capacity and claims against Piserchia in her personal capacity under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act were dismissed with prejudice.
Claims against Piserchia in her personal capacity under the McKinney-Vento Act are dismissed without prejudice with leave to refile by pro bono counsel.
Martin is seeking $370,000 from the Lenape district, $200,000 for injury to J.M., $77,000 for her lost wages from 2022 and 2023, when she stayed home while her son took online classes after being turned away by Lenape, and $98,000 in expenses and debt that came as a result of discrimination by the defendants.
“Here is what should have happened in this case. First, the district should have immediately enrolled J.M. at Lenape High School upon Ms. Martin disputing that she did not live in Mount Laurel at the time of registration. The district argues that its unilateral fact finding that Ms. Martin did not, in fact, reside in Mount Laurel at the time of J.M.’s registration absolved it from compliance with the pendency provision. That misses the point,” Bumb wrote.
“And to the extent that Ms. Martin’s residency proofs were insufficient, that also did not relieve the district of its obligation to immediately enroll J.M. at Lenape High School. McKinney-Vento clearly requires immediate enrollment at the parent’s school of choice, even if the child is unable to produce records normally required for enrollment, such as proof of residency,” Bumb said.
“Second, the district should have provided Ms. Martin with a written explanation of its decision not to enroll J.M. and inform Ms. Martin of her rights to appeal that decision,” Bumb wrote.
“Third, the district should have carried out the formal dispute resolution process in accordance with state law,” Bumb wrote.
“Finally, once it was clear that the district would not enroll J.M. at Lenape High School pending the dispute resolution process, let alone engage in the dispute resolution process, as it was supposed to do, it seems that Ms. Martin could have attempted to re-enroll J.M. at Maple Shade High School. A parent clearly cannot impose unlimited liability on a school district that refuses to follow McKinney-Vento’s pendency provision by keeping their child out of school altogether when another school district could feasibly enroll the student under the McKinney-Vento Act,” Bumb wrote.
Before becoming homeless, Martin and J.M. lived in Maple Shade and he attended high school there, but he left school after misgendering another student. Martin claims she could not reenroll J.M. at the school due to the misgendering incident, but there is no evidence to support that he was expelled, Bumb wrote.
“If J.M. could have technically re-enrolled at Maple Shade High School, Ms. Martin may have failed to mitigate at least some of her damages,” Bumb wrote.
Litigation against school districts by homeless families appears to be rare, said David Rubin, a Metuchen attorney who represents school districts but was not involved in Martin’s suit. School districts often are involved in administrative law proceedings concerning homeless students, which more typically involve such issues as which district pays for the education of a homeless student, Rubin said.
“Generally, the presumption is get the kid into school while the adults sort all this out. Districts who simply close the door to students and don’t allow them to enroll at all while the dispute is resolved do so at their peril,” Rubin said.
Martin said she and her children now live in a motel in Cherry Hill and her son is preparing to begin his senior year at Cherry Hill West High School. She said she had not seen the judge’s latest ruling.
Michael Madden of Madden & Madden in Haddonfield, representing the Lenape Regional High School District, did not respond to a request for comment.
