Gov. Peter Shumlin, Waterbury Municipal Manager Bill Shepeluk and Sen. Peter Welch kick off Waterbury’s new municipal office in 2015. File photo by Elizabeth Hewitt/VTDigger
This story by Josh O’Gorman was published in the Waterbury Record on May 9.
The Vermont Human Rights Commission has sued the Waterbury town government, contending town officials discriminated against a disabled boy.
The nine-page complaint — filed April 29 in the civil division of Washington County Superior Court — asserts the town failed “to engage in an interactive process for reasonable modifications in the town’s policies, practices and procedures; modifications that would have allowed a minor child with disabilities to continue in a summer camp program.”
The complaint 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 commission sued after its investigation found grounds for a discrimination case, and after the Waterbury Select Board voted April 18 to reject the commission’s settlement offer.
Board members Michael Bard, Nathaniel Fish, Mark Frier and Chris Viens, on a secret ballot, voted 3-1 to reject the settlement. Board member Jane Brown was not present.
On July 11, 2017, town officials told the parents of a 10-year-old boy — referred to in court documents as “K.O.” to protect his anonymity — that he could not return to the town’s summer camp because of the boy’s behavior that day.
According to court documents, “after K.O. had been hit by a ball by another child and other children began to yell at him to leave a game, K.O. reacted by yelling, running away, hiding, crying, throwing objects such as backpacks and tennis balls over the fence.”
Court records state former rec director Debra Fowler physically restrained K.O. until police arrived, by which time K.O. was “passive” and “calm,” according to then-Waterbury Police Chief Joby Feccia.
Nobody was hurt, according to court records and the investigation from the Vermont Human Rights Commission. Later that day, Fowler sent an email to parents to explain the situation and stated “at no time was anyone in danger.”
At the time of the incident, nether Fowler nor other town officials knew that K.O. had a medical diagnosis of “emotional disturbance.” His individualized education plan indicates “notable social skills problems … inability to learn … emotional and behavior problems … disability impacts him across settings, in and out of school.”
Records state the boy “endured severe physical, psychological and emotional abuse and trauma as an infant before he was adopted by his parents.”
Court records state that when K.O.’s father — referred to in documents as “Mr. Oak” to preserve the child’s anonymity — reached out to Fowler to notify her of his son’s disability, Fowler said “this is not an ADA camp.”
“Recreation Director Debra Fowler was asked by the Vermont Human Rights Commission to explain her statement ‘this is not an ADA camp’ to which she said what she meant was that ‘this is not a special needs camp’ unlike a ‘cancer’ or ‘diabetic’ camp. They were ‘not set up for any one disability,’” the complaint states.
Last month, Christina Nolan, the U.S. attorney for Vermont, addressed accommodations for disabled children, saying that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, summer camps, both private and those run by municipalities, must make reasonable modifications to enable campers with disabilities to participate fully in all camp programs and activities.
Camps are obligated to pay for the cost of any reasonable modifications necessary for children with disabilities to participate in camp activities, and parents should not be charged any additional fee beyond standard camp enrollment costs.
Days later, Mr. Oak contacted Municipal Manager William Shepeluk and requested accommodations for K.O., such as removing other people from the area when the boy was upset, designating one or two trusted camp counselors to approach K.O., and to contact his parents immediately, records state.
Shepeluk told Mr. Oak that K.O. was not welcome to return, but could participate in other town-run activities, such swim lessons and camps related to soccer and tennis, according the investigation and the complaint.
In a statement, Mr. Oak said he was pleased the Vermont Human Rights Commission had decided to go forward with the lawsuit.
“We are happy that the VHRC believes enough in this case to take it to court,” Mr. Oak said. “We hope that this helps provide other foster and adopted kids the ability to be a part of their communities all across the state.”
Mr. Oak also questioned the method by which the select board voted to reject the settlement offer.
“I, however, do call upon the select board to stand by their vote and not hide behind a secret ballot,” he said. “I think it’s very important that voters know how they voted.”
Board members were apprised of the lawsuit when they met Monday night. While they did not comment on the lawsuit, Shepeluk predicted what the next step would be.
“I can guarantee that the first directive of the judge (will be) that you try to mediate this, so, we’re going to be right back where we were,” he said.
Read the story on VTDigger here: Human Rights Commission sues Waterbury for discrimination against disabled boy.