City pays $150,000 stemming from police escalation of routine encounter with Black 14-year-old with behavioral and intellectual disabilities
Vermont Business Magazine The City of Burlington has settled a civil rights lawsuit filed on behalf of a teenage resident (referenced in court filings as “J.A.”) over discriminatory and unconstitutional treatment by City officials, with the City agreeing to pay $150,000 to resolve the case. This case stems from an encounter in which Burlington police and paramedics needlessly escalated an interaction with J.A., used excessive force, injected him with ketamine, and forcibly removed him from his bedroom and home. J.A., a Black teenager with a documented history of complex trauma and behavioral and intellectual disabilities, was 14 years old at the time of the incident.
Superior Court Judge Helen Toor previously rejected the City’s attempt to have the case thrown out, and sided with the ACLU on several key points, declining to dismiss allegations that the City failed to account for the teen’s disability, and holding that the allegations supported a claim of excessive use of force under the Vermont Constitution and were “more than sufficient to support a claim of racial discrimination on a motion to dismiss”; that the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act does indeed apply to police and fire departments; and that there was “no basis to dismiss any of the claims on qualified immunity grounds at this stage.”
ACLU of Vermont Senior Staff Attorney Hillary Rich: “As we have seen too many times before, police needlessly and violently escalated a routine encounter and then refused to take responsibility for the harm they caused, instead blaming the victim. The fact is that Burlington still has a long way to go to address discrimination in policing and to reduce the footprint of law enforcement in overpoliced communities, as the unanimous findings of the City’s own Police Commission made clear even before this case was filed. Nonetheless, our client welcomes this settlement as a vindication of his rights and a measure of accountability for the severe harm that Burlington officials inflicted upon him.”
On May 15, 2021, Cathy Austrian discovered that her child—who had a recent change to his ADHD medication and was exhibiting unusual behavior—had taken vape pens from a local gas station. When two Burlington Police Department (BPD) officers came to the Austrians’ home, Ms. Austrian immediately informed them of his disabilities and change in medication, and that he had recently undergone an MRI of his heart.
When the officers entered J.A.’s room, he was sitting calmly on the bed and willingly relinquished all but one of the vape pens. J.A. did not engage the officers and presented no danger; the officers could have simply issued a citation or walked away. Instead—despite their knowledge of J.A.’s disabilities and recent medical history—the officers threatened J.A. with arrest and handcuffing if he did not produce the final item.
Although the officers could have engaged in a number of different de-escalation techniques—including continued verbal engagement, taking time and space, calling a supervisor for guidance, or requesting a clinician for support—the officers abandoned BPD’s policies and grabbed J.A., forced his arms behind his back, and wrested the pen from his hands. When he started to panic, the officers handcuffed J.A., attempted to force him down a narrow staircase with his hands behind his back and, when he panicked further, ultimately pinned him to the floor, where the terrified child screamed and contorted himself in distress.
Police summoned paramedics, who proceeded to wrap J.A.’s head with an opaque mesh bag, or a “spit hood,” further scaring him. Officials labeled J.A.’s distress as “excited delirium,” an illegitimate diagnosis rejected by the medical community yet often applied to victims of police violence, especially Black men and boys.
Paramedics then injected J.A. with ketamine—a powerful, fast-acting anesthetic used to induce loss of consciousness and approved for restraint use on adults only—contrary to established protocols. Ms. Austrian watched, horrified, as officials carried her unconscious child from his room in a stretcher bag and took him to the hospital. J.A. was discharged the next day—bruised, disoriented, and traumatized.
Hoping for some accountability, Ms. Austrian filed a complaint with the Burlington Police Commission. After a full and confidential investigation, the Commission unanimously determined the officers’ behavior was inappropriate and unjustified: it found at least ten violations of six BPD policies and concluded that the officers’ actions were likely motivated by implicit racial bias. However, then-Acting Chief John Murad did not accept the Commission’s recommendations, concluded that the officers’ actions constituted an appropriate use of force, and told Ms. Austrian that his officers did not violate any policies.
The Police Commission’s findings were produced in litigation (Docket No. 24-CV-00370, Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, filed on 7/1/2025), offering a rare window into a process that critics have long contended provides inadequate oversight and accountability.
Cathy Austrian: “This experience was deeply traumatic for our family. When the BPD officers arrived at our home, their own racial bias drove them to respond with unprovoked and absolutely unnecessary force. They ignored that my son, who was only a child, was in need of support. Instead, the public safety officials in our home that day disregarded their obligations to the public, violated their own procedures and policies, and escalated the situation into an extremely dangerous and damaging medical emergency. Every Black and brown child and adult has the right to be safe in their own homes and in our community. We have spent five years fighting to hold Burlington accountable for the harm their officials caused my child, but we can’t make changes alone. If you in the community want to ensure other families won’t have to endure this kind of pain and lasting trauma, it’s now up to you to raise your voice and seek changes to this deeply flawed system.”
The ACLU has long raised alarms about the Burlington Police Department’s history of discriminatory policing, though BPD’s leadership has consistently opposed independent oversight. In 2017, the ACLU sent a letter of concern to BPD, citing examples over a two-year period in which people of color—adults as well as children—who swore at or challenged the police were chased down, pepper sprayed, and arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, despite the individuals’ lack of violence or clear threat. The ACLU also filed an amicus brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 on behalf of Charlie Meli, asserting his unlawful arrest was another example of Burlington’s “troubling practice of police responding to Black men’s speech with handcuffs.”
BPD officers have likewise demonstrated a pattern of responding to individuals with disabilities with unnecessary—and sometimes deadly—force. In 2016, after officers killed a man with disabilities who was holding a knife, the Vermont Mental Health Crisis Response Commission concluded the death was preventable and urged further training in mental health best practices. A 2021 assessment of BPD reported that it “has significant deficiencies in training,” particularly regarding interacting with people with disabilities and de-escalation.
The Plaintiff is represented by the ACLU Foundation of Vermont and Latham & Watkins LLP, with strategic support from the MacArthur Justice Center.
The case complaint is available here.
6.11.2026. ACLU of Vermont
To support vital journalism, access our archives and get unique features like our award-winning profiles, Book of Lists & Business-to-Business Directory, subscribe HERE!
Vermont Business Magazine