DENNIS v. WALLINGFORD SWARTHMORE SCHOOL DISTRICT

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEAN DENNIS, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WALLINGFORD SWARTHMORE SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 26-1834
Pappert, J. 	October 13, 2026
MEMORANDUM
Dean Dennis and Suijuan Zheng, proceeding pro se, sued Wallingford
Swarthmore School District under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
seeking review of a special education due process hearing (Count I). Plaintiffs also
allege in Count II national origin discrimination under Title VI and seek in Count III to
“reserve the right” to assert a due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District
moved to dismiss Counts II and III and the Court grants the motion with respect to
Count II and denies it as moot with respect to Count III.
I
Z.Z. is a minor student at Wallingford Swarthmore School District. (Am. Compl.
¶ 6–8, Dkt. No. 12.) Z.Z. lives with his biological mother, Zheng, and Dennis. (Id.) In
2025, the District proposed Z.Z. undergo a “multidisciplinary evaluation,” which Zheng
opposed and requested a due process hearing to challenge the proposed evaluation. (Id.
¶ 13.) The Office for Dispute Resolution scheduled the due process hearing before
Hearing Officer James Gerl. (Id. ¶ 14.) Prior to the hearing, Zheng requested a
Case 2:26-cv-01834-GJP Document 16 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Mandarin-English interpreter, which ODR denied. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 15.) In December 2025,
the Hearing Officer issued a final decision that authorized the proposed
multidisciplinary evaluation. (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiffs then filed suit.
II
To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must “state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A
claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads facts from which the Court can infer
“that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although this “plausibility standard
is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’” it demands “more than a sheer possibility
that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Assessing plausibility under Twombly and Iqbal is a three-step process. See
Connelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016). Step one is to “take
note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim.” Id. (alterations omitted)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675). Next, the Court should identify allegations that,
“because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of
truth.” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). Finally, for all “well-pleaded factual
allegations, [the] court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they
plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). If the well-pleaded facts do not nudge the “claims across the
line from conceivable to plausible,” the Court must dismiss the complaint. Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570.
Case 2:26-cv-01834-GJP Document 16 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 5

3
III
A
Title VI prohibits federally funded programs, including schools, from
discriminating on the basis of national origin or other characteristics. 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000d. To establish a cause of action under Title VI, a plaintiff must show “(1) that
there is racial or national origin discrimination and (2) the entity engaging in
discrimination is receiving federal financial assistance.” Pocono Mountain Charter Sch.
v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist., 908 F. Supp. 2d 597, 615 (M.D. Pa. 2012). In Count II,
Plaintiffs contend the denial of a Mandarin-English interpreter for the ODR due
process hearing violated Title VI. (Am. Compl. ¶ 37, Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiffs allege that
the District receives “substantial federal funding” and “is therefore subject to Title VI’s
non-discrimination mandate.” (Id. ¶ 36.) But the due process hearing was conducted
by ODR, not the District. (Id. ¶ 40.)
Plaintiffs’ allege that the District “through the Office for Dispute Resolution”
denied Zheng access to an interpreter. (Am. Compl. ¶ 40.) When there is a dispute
regarding a child and their education, the IDEA provides for “an impartial due process
hearing” conducted by a state agency, which in Pennsylvania is the ODR. 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.511; A.P. by E.F.v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 294 F. Supp. 3d 406, 411 (E.D. Pa.
2018). Hearing officers, who function as judges during the hearings, are absolutely
immune from liability with respect to any act performed within their capacity as
hearing officer. Luo v. Owen J. Roberts Sch. Dist., No. 22-1632, 2023 WL 5600965, at
*6 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2023) (citing Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978)).
Plaintiffs have not alleged that the District deprived them of an interpreter, but rather
Case 2:26-cv-01834-GJP Document 16 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 5

4
that “ODR staff” denied use of an interpreter during the due process hearing. (Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 15, 16, 40.) While a “school district’s failure to provide adequate language
services” can violate “Title VI’s prohibition against discrimination based on national
origin,” T.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 223 F. Supp. 3d 321, 335 (E.D. Pa. 2016)
(citing Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974)), “ODR’s denial,” alleged by Plaintiffs, does
not state a Title VI claim against the District. (Am. Compl. ¶ 16.)
B
In Count III, Plaintiffs do not attempt to state a claim but merely “reserve the
right” to bring one, (Am. Compl. ¶45), and in their response to the motion to dismiss
state that the facts on which the claim depends are “still developing.” (Pls.’ Resp. in
Opp. at 3, Dkt. No. 15.) There is thus no claim for the Court to assess or adjudicate and
the motion is denied as moot with respect to “Count III.”
IV
A court should “freely give leave” to amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2). If a “civil-rights complaint fails to state a claim,” a court “must grant
leave to amend the complaint unless amendment would be futile or
inequitable.” Vorchheimer v. Phila. Owners Ass’n, 903 F.3d 100, 113 (3d Cir.
2018). Amendment is futile if no new facts could fix the original complaint’s
problems. Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 292 (3d Cir. 1988).
Plaintiffs will be allowed a final opportunity to allege facts which could do so.
An appropriate Order follows.
Case 2:26-cv-01834-GJP Document 16 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 5

5
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
Gerald J. Pappert, J.
Case 2:26-cv-01834-GJP Document 16 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 5