Puyallup special needs kids sprayed with water, kept in isolation, probe found
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Parents sued Puyallup School District, alleging their autistic son was abused.
- The district’s own probe found aides sprayed students with water and isolated them.
- The paraeducators’ actions violated district policy, according to district and lawsuit.
Special education students in a Puyallup elementary school were sprayed with a water bottle and blocked from leaving an isolation room by staff, who were found to have violated school district policy, according to a lawsuit.
Katherine and Matthew James sued the Puyallup School District on behalf of their 14-year-old son, who has autism and various disabilities, in Pierce County Superior Court on Jan. 27. The lawsuit alleges he was abused by at least three teachers’ aides at Fruitland Elementary School during the fourth and fifth grades, between 2023 and 2025, and “likely prior to those years.”
“The district’s own internal investigation found that multiple personnel engaged in threatening and abusive conduct barred by district policy against some of the most vulnerable students that they have, and this went on for months, if not longer,” attorney Michael Smith, who’s representing the James family, said in an interview Wednesday.
The school district’s investigation, dated in July, found that four classroom para-educators used or most likely used a water bottle and an isolation room to deter the negative behaviors of at least three students, including the plaintiffs’ son, according to the lawsuit and a copy of the district’s 22-page report that Smith shared with The News Tribune.
Aides sprayed students or used the threat of getting sprayed to intimidate students, the district’s report said. Those actions violated district policy and Washington Administrative Code, which prohibit the systematic use of unpleasant stimuli to discourage undesirable behaviors in students with disabilities, according to the report.
Aides also didn’t document instances when the water bottle or isolation room were used and didn’t notify parents about uses of the isolation room, in violation of district procedures, the report said. The classroom’s teacher knew about the aides’ activities but made no effort to stop it, according to the report.
In late August, Fruitland Elementary School Principal Christi Ellenwood told parents that the district had concluded that classroom staff had “engaged in inappropriate strategies when interacting with specific students” and wouldn’t be returning to the school, the lawsuit said.
The Puyallup School District “investigated promptly” upon being made aware of the allegations, according to district spokesperson Sarah Gillispie.
“We do not condone the conduct described in the complaint and have taken remedial action to address the concerns. Staff involved with the underlying conduct are no longer with the district,” Gillispie said in a statement Wednesday. “As this matter proceeds through the litigation process, the District will remain committed to providing a safe and positive educational experience for all students.”
Staff member’s concern prompts probe
The James family’s son, who is “substantially non-verbal,” was enrolled in an intermediate class within Fruitland Elementary’s support center program, the complaint said. He is “expressive, loving and inquisitive,” but he can hit, kick, push or headbutt in response to tasks or demands he doesn’t like, the suit said.
He was “traumatized” by the excessive, harmful and unreported use of prohibited techniques used by staff to modify his behavior and resisted going to school, according to the suit. Smith said the district’s investigative findings validated his clients’ contentions.
“(The district) recognized the harm and the misconduct that had occurred,” he said.
The legal complaint is seeking unspecified damages and legal fees for alleged discrimination, negligence, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Smith said the family wants there to be better training, oversight and supervision of staff in special education, as well as improved communication with families if issues arise.
According to the district’s investigative report, the probe began after a staff member in May 2025 reported witnessing two para-educators escort an apparently agitated student to the isolation room in the back of the class, where the student stayed for approximately three minutes. A para-educator stood in front of the door and blocked the exit. When the student, who’s unidentified in the report and lawsuit, grew agitated upon being released, a para-educator grabbed a water bottle and sprayed the student in the face, the staff member reported.
In interviews with five para-educators who worked in the class, a district investigator reported that some aides said they employed the water bottle only as a visual deterrent for staff safety. Aides consistently voiced experiencing regular injuries or physical contact from students, the district’s report said.
Water spray could be used as calming stimuli, a “cloud” barrier between staff and students, or as a visual to stop a student from spitting, one aide said. Water could be sprayed at the side of a student’s head or at a student’s hands to prevent striking or pinching, according to the aide.
Some para-educators were untruthful about their knowledge of the water bottle’s use, the district’s investigation found.
Additionally, the investigation found that para-educators had disregarded training on isolation and restraint processes, creating their own rules. Aides didn’t appear to understand what defined isolation. For instance, one believed that blocking a child in the room with one’s body or holding the door did not qualify as such, according to the report. Aides also noted that district trainings were confusing and that staff followed the lead of experienced aides in the classroom.
The room where students were isolated had a covered window, and staff would turn off the lights, according to the lawsuit.
One aide told the district’s investigator that staff members were told not to complete “so many” isolation/restraint forms, the district’s report said.
Two months prior to the probe, district administrators met with classroom aides because they had pre-filled out isolation/restraint paperwork for certain students and made many copies, the report said.
“The District meeting clarified they should not be pre-planning to restrain a child and gave specific tools for these situations,” the report said. “The concern was overuse of restraint, not over documentation of restraint incidents.”
“It was evident the classroom staff was more inclined to restrain or force compliance than to sincerely attempt de-escalation,” the report added.
This story was originally published February 6, 2026 at 5:00 AM.
