This story by Josh O’Gorman was published by the Waterbury Record on May 23.
[A] settlement offer in a discrimination case sought to impose requirements on Waterbury’s summer camp program.
The selectboard rejected the settlement, and now Waterbury is facing a discrimination lawsuit that seeks financial damages.
On April 29, the Vermont Human Rights Commission sued the town government, alleging the recreation department had engaged in discrimination by not making accommodations for a disabled 10-year-old boy who had been kicked out of the program for his behavior.
Late last year, the commission found grounds to believe the town discriminated against the boy — who has a diagnosis of emotional disturbance — in July 2017.
According to the commission’s report and the subsequent lawsuit, the boy had been kicked out of the summer day-camp program after an emotional outburst. The records state that, at the time, the parents of the child had not told town officials of the boy’s disability.
However, days later, the boy’s father asked the town to make accommodations for his son so he could return to the summer camp. Town officials refused that request.
The lawsuit filed April 29 in Washington County Superior Court “asks the court to rule the town’s actions were unlawful, and to award the parent and child compensatory and punitive damages adequate to compensate them for the harm they suffered … as well as pain and suffering, including emotional distress and loss of dignity.”
The lawsuit does not include specific dollar amounts for damages.
Board: No settlement
The lawsuit came after the Waterbury Selectboard used a secret ballot April 15 to vote 3-1 to reject the settlement offer. Board member Jane Brown was not present.
In the months leading up to that vote, board members had talked about the offer in closed-door sessions. The settlement offer included $17,500 in damages — $7,500 for the boy and his family, and $10,000 for the town to set aside to support accommodations for children with disabilities, including children with behavioral disabilities.
However, the settlement offer included a number of other requirements for the town, including:
• Written policies and procedures outlining the town’s obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and how parents can request accommodations for their children.
• Accommodations for children with disabilities.
• Before removing a child from a program for behavior related to a disability, consult with the parent or guardian to see if there are accommodations that would allow the child to stay in the program.
• Designate a person to review accommodation requests that were not granted, and “make reasonable efforts to ensure the person designated … shall be provided training in childhood trauma and emotional/behavioral disabilities.”
• Require training for recreation staff on how best to serve children with disabilities or histories of trauma.
Under the settlement agreement, no party would admit to being at fault.
Board reaction
When board members cast their anonymous votes to reject the settlement offer, there was no discussion of their rationale. Subsequently, board chair Chris Viens explained why he found the settlement offer objectionable.
“The whole thing was a deal-breaker for me, personally,” Viens said. “There’s this rule in place that allows parents to put towns in vulnerable situations where they ask us to provide for their children, but they don’t give us all the tools necessary or all the information necessary, and when we misstep, purely from the perspective of inadequate knowledge, then we’re hung out to dry by the Human Rights Commission and the lawyers and our society as a whole.”
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that all summer camps, whether private or public, make reasonable accommodations for children with disabilities.
“If we conceded and agreed to that original settlement offer, it opens up other problems down the road, for us and for other municipalities,” said Viens, who laid the blame not on the child, but on the child’s parents.
“Had the parents done the right thing and trusted in our staff to deal with their child accordingly, if they had divulged his condition, there’s a 99 percent chance that child would still be in the program. In my view, not only did the parents do a disservice to the child, but they did a disservice to the community.”
The boy’s father, who has spoken with the Waterbury Record in the past, did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
Bor Yang, executive director of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, said she could not comment on the settlement offer because it is intended to be confidential. However, she said the lawsuit doesn’t mean the terms of the settlement agreement are off the table.
“Litigation is not always the best way to get relief,” she said. “It’s possible for the lawsuit to result in a settlement that contain provisions outlined in the settlement offer.”
