Office for Civil Rights Agreement Requires Frederick County Public Schools in Maryland to Review Cafeteria Restraint and Possible FAPE Denial
OCR raised concerns after a teacher unaware of a student’s 504 plan repeatedly removed his hood, held his body and arm, and staff didn’t use required regulation strategies.
June 15, 2026, U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a letter of findings to Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS) in Maryland, after investigating a complaint alleging disability discrimination involving an elementary school student with a 504 plan.
OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. 03-26-1199 and investigated the following allegations that occurred during the 2025-26 school year:
“1) a staff member inappropriately restrained Student A; and
“2) school personnel failed to implement provisions of Student A’s Section 504 Plan that required them to contact available personnel when Student A becomes dysregulated and contact Student A’s parents immediately if Student A falls or has significant contact to his spine.”
Before OCR completed its investigation, FCPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. June 12, 2026, FCPS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR.
OCR didn’t issue a final violation finding. Instead, OCR stated the following concerns:
“Based on the evidence collected to date, OCR has concerns regarding whether the District denied Student A a FAPE when Teacher A responded in a manner that exacerbated Student A’s dysregulation when she repeatedly took his hood off his head, which Student A uses to self-regulate, and then physically held Student A’s body and arms even after the Classroom Teacher told her to stop. OCR is concerned that the District did not consider whether this conduct constituted harassment based on disability and whether School staff responded appropriately. In addition, OCR is concerned that School staff who were responsible for supervising Student A were not aware of Student A’s Section 504 plan and did understand how to use appropriate deescalation techniques when he became dysregulated per his Section 504 plan, which were part of the services needed to provide a FAPE. Lastly, OCR is concerned that the Section 504 team failed to consider whether Student A was denied a FAPE because of the incident and whether Student A was in need of compensatory or other services such as counseling to address his increased dysregulation, emotional outbursts, and elopement that may have been caused by the incident.”
