Case 1:17-cv-00177-RCL Document 3 Filed 02/17/17 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
A.M., a minor by and through her coguardians ad litem MELISSA KOPOLOW
McCALL and MATTHEW McCALL,
1406 Jonquil Street, NW
Washington, DC 20012,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00177-RCL (LAMBERTH)
Plaintiffs,
v.
BRIDGES PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL
100 Gallatin Street, NE
Washington, DC 20011,
KRISTINE RIGLEY
100 Gallatin Street, NE
Washington, DC 20011,
COLLETTE BURTS
100 Gallatin Street, NE
Washington, DC 20011
KRISTEN WILLIAMS,
100 Gallatin Street, NE
Washington, DC 20011
DONISE WIGGINS
100 Gallatin Street, NE
Washington, DC 20011
SHANTELLE FULLER,
100 Gallatin Street, NE
Washington, DC 20011
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff A.M., a minor by and through her co-guardians ad litem MELISSA KOPOLOW
McCALL and MATTHEW McCALL (hereinafter “A.M”), alleges as follows:

Page 1 of 10

 Case 1:17-cv-00177-RCL Document 3 Filed 02/17/17 Page 2 of 10

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 [federal question

jurisdiction] and 28 U.S.C. §1343(a) [federal civil rights jurisdiction].
2.

Venue in this court is proper by virtue of the fact that all acts and omissions

complained of occurred within the District of Columbia.
PARTIES
3.

Plaintiff A.M. is a minor and a resident of the District of Columbia. This action is

brought on her behalf by her parents and co-guardians ad litem MELISSA KOPOLOW McCALL and
MATTHEW McCALL.
4.

Defendant Bridges Public Charter School (“BRIDGES”) is a “charter school”

operating in the District of Columbia for the purpose of educating and caring for minor children;
Bridges has been established in the District pursuant to D.C. Code § 38-1802.04. BRIDGES receives
substantial direct and indirect federal financial assistance.
5.

Defendant Kristine Rigley (“RIGLEY”) is the principal of BRIDGES school. All

actions taken by RIGLEY as alleged herein were taken in the course and scope of her employment
with BRIDGES school. As such, BRIDGES school is vicariously liable for the actions of RIGLEY
alleged herein.
6.

Defendant Collette Burts (“BURTS”) was a special education teacher at the

BRIDGES school. BURTS quit in October 2015 and was alternatively offered the position of
Specialized Instruction Lead for all inclusion rooms. All actions taken by BURTS as alleged herein
were taken in the course and scope of her employment with BRIDGES school. As such, BRIDGES
school is vicariously liable for the actions of BURTS alleged herein.
7.

Defendant Donise Wiggins (“WIGGINS”) is a classroom aide at BRIDGES school.

All actions taken by WIGGINS as alleged herein were taken in the course and scope of her
Page 2 of 10

 Case 1:17-cv-00177-RCL Document 3 Filed 02/17/17 Page 3 of 10

employment with BRIDGES school. As such, BRIDGES is vicariously liable for the actions of
WIGGINS alleged herein.
8.

Defendant Kristin Williams (“WILLIAMS”) is a classroom aide at BRIDGES school.

All actions taken by WILLIAMS as alleged herein were taken in the course and scope of her
employment with BRIDGES school. As such, BRIDGES is vicariously liable for the actions of
WILLIAMS alleged herein.
9.

Defendant Shantelle Fuller (“FULLER”) was a classroom aide at BRIDGES school.

All actions taken by FULLER as alleged herein were taken in the course and scope of her employment
with BRIDGES school. As such, BRIDGES is vicariously liable for the actions of FULLER alleged
herein.
10.

Defendants, by virtue of their status under D.C. Code §38-1802.04, are and were, at

all times relevant hereto, acting under the color of state law.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11.

A.M. was born on December 2, 2011. She suffers from multiple disabilities, has

limited communication ability, and is visually impaired. A.M. communicates with gestures and
vocalization, but is effectively non-verbal.
12.

Because of her disabilities, A.M. requires special education services, including special

accommodations, and trained staff to assist with her impairments.
13.

A.M. was assigned to the “non-categorical” pre-K class at BRIDGES school. “Non-

categorical” classes are those designed for students with moderate disabilities who require an
educational environment focused on classroom-wide instruction in the development of behavior
management, communication and social skills. The program provides intensive intervention within a
self-contained class for the majority of the school day. A.M. was assigned to a non-categorical class
solely by reason of her disabilities
Page 3 of 10

 Case 1:17-cv-00177-RCL Document 3 Filed 02/17/17 Page 4 of 10

14.

A.M. began attending pre-K at BRIDGES school on August 24, 2014, when she was

three years old. A.M. was placed in the “Ducklings” classroom. At the time A.M. was first placed
into the Ducklings classroom, Defendant BURTS was the classroom teacher. After BURTS quit in
October 2015, she was replaced as teacher by Donald Wallace. WIGGINS, WILLIAMS, and
FULLER were classroom aides.
15.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that A.M. and other special

education students in the Ducklings classroom were subject to ongoing physical and verbal abuse.
The allegations set forth herein are based on the limited information known to A.M.’s guardians as
litem and do not constitute the full extent of the abuse endured by A.M.
16.

Defendant BURTS, WIGGINS, WILLIAMS, and FULLER, who were employed to

provide instructional and developmental services to disabled students and students with special needs,
instead routinely caused A.M. and her classmates to suffer pain and fear. The actions of Defendants
were not appropriate to any classroom, especially that of a special education classroom and instead
caused significant and enduring psychological injury.
17.

On numerous occasions, BURTS, WIGGINS, WILLIAMS, and/or FULLER would

place A.M. on her cot during nap time, pile bean bag chairs on top of her, and place their feet and legs
on top of the bean bag chairs to pin A.M. to her cot and completely restrain her from being able to
move. A.M. would scream the entire time she was restrained in this manner.
18.

On information and belief, there were many other incidents of BURTS, WIGGINS,

WILLIAMS, and/or FULLER physically and verbally abusing A.M.
19.

On information and belief, there were many other incidents of BURTS, WIGGINS,

WILLIAMS, and/or FULLER abusing other children in A.M.’s class and at Bridges in the presence
of A.M. which A.M. observed including, but not limited to:
(a)

An incident where WIGGINS became very angry when a little boy in the class wet
himself and harshly grabbed him, yelled in his face, and dragged him by the wrist;
Page 4 of 10

 Case 1:17-cv-00177-RCL Document 3 Filed 02/17/17 Page 5 of 10

(b)

An incident where a nonverbal child with autism was carried by one of the aides upside
down by his feet across the room;

(c)

An incident where a nonverbal child with autism was grabbed by his throat by one of
the aides and shoved into a bookcase, so that the bookcase contents spilled on the
floor and the child fell to the ground;

(d)

An incident where aides screamed at a child for his uncontrollable laughter which is
symptomatic of his disability;

(e)

An incident where a child fell on the floor and wasn’t taken to the nurse despite his
crying;

(f)

An incident where a child with Down Syndrome was dragged by one arm across the
floor into the bathroom;

(g)

An incident where an aide told a child “shut up or I’m going to punch you in the face”;

(h)

An incident where an aide told a child “shut the f**k up!”;

(i)

Incidents where students were left alone in the classroom;

(j)

An incident where it was witnessed that an aide yelled at a child to “get your ass back
on your cot.”; and,

(k)

An incident where a visitor to a classroom had to assure a child did not knock a
bookcase over on top of himself and/or others.

20.

On information and belief, Defendant RIGLEY and other unknown supervisory

school officials received reports from multiple individuals that A.M. and students in A.M.’s classroom
were being physically and verbally abused. RIGLEY failed to act in response to the reports she
received.
21.

On information and belief, A.M. and all of the other children in the Ducklings

classroom were subject to a hostile educational environment based on their respective disabilities.
They were placed in the classroom solely by reason of their disabilities. They were subject to – and
observed other children being subjected to – demeaning and insulting language, hostile and aggressive
conduct by teachers and aides, and physical abuse including but not limited to physical assaults,
violently being grabbed, and unreasonable and unnecessary restraint. The verbal abuse was severe
enough to cause intense fear and other psychological damage which continues to the present.
Page 5 of 10

 Case 1:17-cv-00177-RCL Document 3 Filed 02/17/17 Page 6 of 10

22.

The abusive behavior directed at the children in the Ducklings classroom was triggered

in response to the children’s disabilities. The defendants inflicted their negative and punitive conduct
on the children when the children exhibited behaviors related to their disabilities. The Defendants
also acted aggressively when the disabled children did not comply with the Defendants’ directives.
This too was related to disabilities in that many of the students had cognitive or communication
impairments that impacted their responses.
23.

On information and belief, the impact of the Defendants’ conduct was not limited to

the children who were directly targeted for abuse. Children who were not directly abused identified
with the children being abused, were fearful of being abused, and took on the message that they were
bad as well.
24.

A.M.’s co-guardians ad litems are not aware of the full extent of the abuse at this time.

Because of her age and disabilities, A.M. is not capable of conveying to her parents the wrongfulness
of the actions taken by Defendants. In addition, BRIDGES school maintains a policy of restricting
access to its classroom. As a result, the adult Plaintiffs had very little interaction with the classroom
staff or other parents.
25.

After observing repeated acts of abuse in the classroom, classroom teacher Donald

Wallace reported his observations to RIGLEY and other unknown school officials. RIGLEY and
other officials took no action. Eventually, law enforcement officials were notified.
26.

As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions as alleged herein, minor Plaintiff A.M.

has suffered physical injuries, pain and suffering, educational and psychological regression, emotional
distress, and other psychological harm.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 of the United States Constitution)
27.

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each of the preceding paragraphs.

Page 6 of 10

 Case 1:17-cv-00177-RCL Document 3 Filed 02/17/17 Page 7 of 10

28.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants BURTS, WIGGINS, WILLIAMS, and/or

FULLER deprived A.M. of her right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
to be free of excessive force and unreasonable seizure by their actions, including but not limited to,
repeatedly piling bean bag chairs on top of A.M., placing their feet and legs on top of the bean bag
chairs to pin A.M. to her cot, and completely restraining her from being able to move. Defendants
were well aware from A.M.’s response to these restraints that she was being caused serious emotional
distress by Defendant’s conduct.
29.

On information and belief, the use of excessive force and the unreasonable seizure

was done because of, in response to, and/or triggered by A.M.’s disabilities.
30.

On information and belief, Defendants BURTS and RIGLEY violated minor A.M.’s

rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by actions, including but not
limited to, acting with deliberate indifference to the risk of harm to A.M. from BURTS, WIGGINS,
WILLIAMS, and/or FULLER respectively. BURTS and RIGLEY personally participated in the
deprivation of constitutional rights of A.M. by their failure to act in response to allegations of serious
child abuse by BURTS, WIGGINS, WILLIAMS, and/or FULLER.
31.

On information and belief, BURTS and RIGLEY knew that they could cover up the

abuse because of A.M.’s limited verbal ability.
32.

Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff A.M.’s harm as

described herein above.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Discrimination in Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act)
33.

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations in all the foregoing paragraphs

as though fully set forth herein.
34.

Effective January 26, 1992, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Page 7 of 10

 Case 1:17-cv-00177-RCL Document 3 Filed 02/17/17 Page 8 of 10

entitled A.M. to the protections of the “Public Services” provisions. Title II prohibits discrimination
by any “public entity,” including any state or local government, as defined by 42 U.S.C.A. § 12131,
Section 201 of the ADA.
35.

Pursuant to Section 202 of Title II, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by

reason of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,
programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42
U.S.C. § 12132.
36.

A.M. was, at all times relevant herein, a qualified individual with a disability as therein

defined.
37.

Defendant BRIDGES responsibilities under Title II to provide its services, programs,

and activities in a full and equal manner to disabled persons as described hereinabove, including a
responsibility ensure that educational services are provided on an equal basis to children with
disabilities as to those without and free of hostility toward or on account of their disability.
38.

Defendants BURTS, WIGGINS, WILLIAMS, and/or FULLER subjected A.M. to

physical, verbal, and psychological abuse because of various symptoms manifested from A.M.’s
disability, such as her inability to verbally communicate. A.M. was also subjected to a hostile
educational environment on account of her disability.
39.

Children without disabilities who attended BRIDGES were not subject to the same

treatment.
40.

Defendant BRIDGES is vicariously liable for the actions or inactions of its employees.

41.

On information and belief, Defendant RIGLEY had actual knowledge of the ongoing

abuse and knew that Defendant Bridge’s agents, servants, and employees were likely to continue
abusing A.M., but failed to act upon it.
42.

As a result of Defendant BRIDGES failure to comply with their duty under Title II,
Page 8 of 10

 Case 1:17-cv-00177-RCL Document 3 Filed 02/17/17 Page 9 of 10

Plaintiff has suffered damages as described herein above.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973)
43.

Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations in all the foregoing paragraphs

above as though fully set forth herein.
44.

On information and belief, A.M. alleges that Defendant BRIDGES is and has been at

all relevant times the recipient of federal financial assistance and that part of that financial assistance
has been used to fund the operation, construction, and/or maintenance of the specific public facilities
described herein and the activities that take place therein.
45.

By their action or inaction in denying equal access to educational services, and by

subjecting plaintiff A.M. to a hostile educational environment, Defendants and their agents, servants,
and employees violated A.M.’s rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.
§794, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
46.

Defendant BRIDGES is vicariously liable for the action or inaction of its employees.

47.

On information and belief, Defendant RIGLEY had actual knowledge of the ongoing

abuse and knew that Defendant BRIDGES’ agents, servants, and employees were likely to continue
abusing A.M., but failed to act upon it.
48.

As a result of Defendants BRIDGES failure to comply with its duty under Section 504

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, and the regulations promulgated thereunder,
Plaintiff suffered damages as described herein above.

Page 9 of 10

 Case 1:17-cv-00177-RCL Document 3 Filed 02/17/17 Page 10 of 10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff A.M. demands judgment against Defendants in an amount to be
determined at trial but believed to be in excess of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) in
damages, plus costs of this suit, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: February 17, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
PAULSON & NACE, PLLC
/s/ Christopher T. Nace
Christopher T. Nace, Bar No. 977865
Matthew A. Nace, Bar No. 1011968
1615 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20009
202-463-1999 – Telephone
202-223-6824 – Facsimile
ctnace@paulsonandnace.com
man@paulsonandnace.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs

Jury Demand
Plaintiff, by and through the undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 38 of Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, hereby demands trial by jury of all issues in this matter.

/s/Christopher T. Nace
Christopher T. Nace, Esq.

Page 10 of 10