Richardson ISD is being sued in federal court over an alleged mishandling of a student with disabilities, court records show.

On Aug. 13, the student’s lawyer filed a civil rights lawsuit against the district in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. In the filing, his attorney alleges that RISD discriminated against the student through repeated failures to provide sufficient supports and accommodations that it itself acknowledged were necessary due to his emotional and learning disabilities.

In the filing, the 14-year-old student is anonymously referred to as C.W. to protect his privacy as a minor. His mother is named as his legal representative in the suit, which is being litigated by Arlington attorney Mark Whitburn on their behalf.

Whitburn told the Observer that the student had behavioral issues related to his condition, and that the way RISD mishandled the disciplinary process has had a lasting, negative impact on the student. He can no longer attend a public school and has been traumatized as a result of the district’s actions, the filing alleges.

“Part of the problem is that if you send your child to school, and that child gets into something like this and has that trauma, then, as is the case here, the child develops a certain difficulty in learning in the public school environment,” Whitburn said. “Then you’ve shaped that child’s whole life going forward.”

A district spokesperson declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages for past expenses stemming from the district’s alleged mishandling of his disabilities, in addition to attorney fees. 

According to the suit, the student first enrolled at a Richardson ISD middle school during the fall of 2023. He completed seventh grade at that campus before moving to another middle school, after which a series of disciplinary issues led to an in-school suspension and eventually expulsion to a juvenile justice alternative education program.

The filing states that the student has emotional disorders and ADHD. The district acknowledged his status, but the suit alleges it failed to provide a free and appropriate public education as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

His disabilities led to “verbal and physical aggression; and inappropriate interactions” such as a lack of physical boundaries, the filing states. The filing alleges that he suffered abuse at the hands of a teacher as early as 2024, which led to further issues.

“When [student] has exhibited these disability-related behaviors at school, RISD has responded in inappropriate ways that have caused [student] additional trauma and exacerbated the symptoms of his disabilities,” the filing states.

The filing cites three separate instances in which it alleges RISD mishandled the disciplinary process after incidents at the student’s school.

• Nov. 2024: The student had a physical altercation on a school bus and received a 40-day placement in a disciplinary alternative education center. “RISD continued to fail to provide C.W. the behavioral accommodations he requires while he was at the DAEP placement, which led to C.W. having 4 additional behavior incidents as well as C.W. receiving failing grades at the DAEP placement,” the filing states. The suit also notes that the student had to complete the remainder of the school year from home.
• August 2025: The student had a physical altercation with a classmate and received a 15-day ISS placement. “RISD did not implement C.W.’s accommodations appropriately while he was in the ISS placement, causing him to fail to complete his assignments and thus receive failing grades,” according to the filing.
• September 2025: While in ISS, the student asked the teacher to escort him to the bathroom, after which the teacher alleges he pushed her inside, the filing states. RISD determined the behavior was not a result of his disabilities and sent the student to a 90-day placement in a juvenile justice alternative education program. “C.W.’s mental health deteriorated further due to RISD’s handling of this incident and the resulting isolation from his peers while at the JJAEP placement,” the filing states.

“I don’t want to minimize it as an individual case by saying that I’ve seen it a number of times before,” Whitburn said. “But I will say that the fact that I’ve seen it before shows that public school districts, I think, are struggling. They are struggling to keep staff members in place, are struggling to train their staff adequately, and when that happens, a lot of times it’s the kids with special needs that really pay a price.”

Whitburn’s filing also cites a February 2026 due process decision by a state hearing officer, who ruled that the September incident was the “direct result” of the student’s disabilities and ordered the district to return the student from JJAEP. The decision came after the student’s mother appealed in January.

According to the hearing report, RISD recognized that the student had ADHD and an emotional disability during an initial evaluation in 2023. The district then implemented an individualized education program (IEP) that authorized social skills and study skills education in a special education setting, counseling and classroom accommodations, including the ability “to take a break or get up and move around when Student’s attention to task was waning.”

In November 2024, changes were made to the student’s IEP that eliminated social and study skills instruction, reduced counseling hours and removed certain classroom accommodations, including movement breaks. When the plan was revisited at an August meeting with a parent, the consensus was that the student “needed guidance, but that [C.W.] was an intelligent student who could also produce quality work and be respectful and cooperative,” the report states. The hearing officer also found that while staff discussed adding another social skills class to his IEP with his parent, the class did not appear to have been implemented appropriately.

“Meetings suggest that the social skills class was added by amendment, but there is no documentation with parent’s signature showing that [parent] agreed,” the officer wrote. “Moreover, an IEP amendment cannot be used if a student’s allocation of time in general and special education settings is changing.”

The officer also wrote that evidence presented by RISD to show the amendment was properly enacted “is dubious at best,” and that documentation revealed several irregularities.

The classroom incident which led to the ISS placement occurred later that month. During that placement, the student asked an ISS teacher to escort him to the bathroom while attending his social skills class, the report states. The student later wrote that “he didn’t mean to,” in reference to his alleged pushing of the teacher, and the officer found that district staff “skipped over or cherry-picked the information within the documents [of the incident and the student’s IEP] according to what would best support its conclusion” to deny his disabilities as the cause and send him to Dallas County-administered JJAEP for 90 days. 

According to the report, the ISS teacher testified that she received “no training or information on [student’s] behavioral needs or strategies for how to work with Student,” an assertion that was supported by testimony from another staff member.

The officer ruled that the district mishandled the disciplinary process by deciding the incident was unrelated to his condition, which she wrote “had a direct and substantial relationship” to the behavior. She further wrote that the subsequent incident was a “direct result” of the district’s improper addition of the social skills class during which it occurred. 

“This case presents a perverse result in that the District, with parent agreement, was clearly trying to provide more of what Student needed than what was in the IEP, as opposed to providing less than what the IEP required,” the officer wrote.

With the last point of the mediation process resolved in April, the petitioners are seeking monetary relief not available under IDEA to cover expenses incurred as a result of the district’s alleged mishandling.

The case is going forward, court documents show. On Aug. 14, the judge issued an order outlining the process for submitting documents to be sealed from the public record.