Thomas Blessing

Experienced Fishers Education Lawyer

Tom Blessing is a partner with Massillamany Jeter & Carson LLP and practices education, personal injury and civil rights law. Parents and students turn to Tom for representation when school districts violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Article 7, Section 504, Title IX and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including:

Failure to implement a child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP)
Child Find violations
Eligibility determinations
Expulsions
Suspensions
Manifestation determinations
LRE violations

The father of an adult with autism, Tom devotes much of his advocacy as a champion for the rights of the most vulnerable among us: children and people with disabilities who have been neglected, exploited or abused. His clients include victims of:

Negligence causing personal injury
Wrongful death
Disability discrimination
Seclusion
Sexual harassment, including grooming, staff-on-student and student-on-student sexual battery
Bullying and “bullycide”
Physical assault

In addition to representing clients in trial courts and administrative hearings, Tom has handled several appeals and oral arguments before the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Court of Appeals.

Prior to joining the firm, Tom represented several major insurance companies and corporations, including Coca-Cola Bottling, McDonald’s franchisees, ADT Security Systems, Cintas Corporation and TransUnion. He has earned the prestigious AV Preeminent® Rating, the highest recognized by Martindale-Hubbell®, a national peer review system. Tom is a Life Member in the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum, an elite national organization of trial lawyers who have recovered $2 million or more for a client. He belongs to The National Trial Lawyers Association, which is limited to the top 100 trial lawyers from each state. Selection is extended to civil plaintiff and criminal defense attorneys by special invitation. Candidates are considered for membership based on superior qualifications, leadership, reputation, influence, stature and profile in the trial lawyer community.

Originally from suburban Chicago, Tom graduated with honors from DePauw University. He received his law degree from Indiana University where he was voted Best Advocate in moot court by a panel of sitting judges. He enjoys grilling, target shooting and being outdoors, especially on or under the water.

Get the help of qualified legal representation on your side when planning for your future. Call (317) 434-1490 now to schedule your free consultation with Massillamany Jeter & Carson LLP.

Education

B.A., DePauw University, Cum Laude
Honor Scholar
Delta Chi Fraternity
Debate Team
SCUBA Club
J.D., Indiana University School of Law
Dean’s Tutorial Society
Moot Court (Best Advocate)

Professional

AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell
The National Trial Lawyers
The Federalist Society
Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum (Life Member)
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA)
Hamilton County Bar Association

Email

tom@mjcattorneys.com

Media Mentions

Appellate Decisions

M.S.D. of Martinsville v. Jackson, 9 N.E.3d 230 (Ind. App. 2014) (school shooting)
Save The Valley v. Ferguson, 896 N.E.2d 1205 (Ind. App. 2008) (environmental)
Old Republic Ins. Co. v. RLI Ins. Co., 887 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. App. 2008) (insurance coverage declaratory judgment)
McDonald v. Household Int’l, Inc., 425 F.3d 424 (7^th Cir. 2005) (ERISA)
Indiana Ass’n of Beverage Retailers v. Alcohol and Tobacco Comm’n, 836 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. 2005) (administrative review)
Johnson v. Celebration Fireworks, 829 N.E.2d 979 (Ind. 2005) (unlawful assessment of license fees)
Celebration Halloween v. Chosun Int’l, 234 F.Supp.2d 905 (S.D. Ind. 2002) (copyright infringement)
Ward v. Duke Realty, 725 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. App. 2000) (premises liability)
Street v. Shoe Carnival, 660 N.E.2d 1054 (Ind. App. 1996) (false arrest)
China National Fireworks Co. Ltd. v. Lun Yuet Yee Edwina and Full Moon (H.K.) Ltd., 775 N.E.2d 1239 (Ind. App. 2002) (trade secrets and tortious interference)
Coca-Cola Bottling v. Sherwood, 726 N.E.2d 906 (Ind. App. 2000) (products liability class action)
Hughes v. State, 18A-CR-01007 (Ind. App. 2019) (wrongful conviction)
Indiana Family & Social Services Admin. v. Blessing, 21A-PL-01707 (Ind. App. 2022) (challenging Medicaid rule denying benefits for people with autism)

Representative Cases

Tom began his legal career representing insurance companies and spent several years defending lawsuits. After representing plaintiffs in a couple of jury trials, he realized how much more rewarding it is to help victims—people who have been hurt by the abuse, discrimination, negligence or deliberate indifference of others.

In 2010, Tom expanded his practice to include education law. He developed an interest in helping students with disabilities who were being denied a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) by public schools, bringing claims under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). He also represents students who have been injured or subjected to sexual harassment, grooming, bullying, abuse or discrimination at school.

In addition to his education law practice, Tom represents victims of civil rights violations, personal injury, wrongful death and sexual abuse. Some of the more significant cases he has handled are summarized below.

Civil Rights

Tom represented a family whose children were unlawfully removed from their parents in Huff v. Indiana Dep’t of Child Services, et al. In a textbook case of judicial deception, DCS employees withheld evidence from and made material misrepresentations to the juvenile court in order to obtain custody of the children. The mother has a disability and is confined to a wheelchair, which DCS caseworkers apparently believed rendered her an unfit parent. The family filed a civil rights lawsuit against DCS and several caseworkers in federal court alleging substantive due process, unreasonable seizure, Equal Protection and disability discrimination claims under the ADA. Shortly after defeating the state’s motion for summary judgment, Tom negotiated a $1.375 million settlement for the family.

The tragic case of Jane Doe v. Anonymous School District received national media attention when a 12-year old girl committed suicide after being targeted by bullies because of her appearance and sexual orientation. Tom filed suit against the school in federal court asserting claims for wrongful death, violations of Title IX and Equal Protection. Following written discovery and depositions of school employees, the case was settled in mediation for an undisclosed sum.

John Doe v. Acme School Corp. was another heartbreaking “bullycide” case. Tom represented the mother ofa 17-year old boy of mixed ethnicity who was bullied at school because of his perceived sexual orientation until he committed suicide. His mother hired Tom to file a lawsuit against the school and several staff members asserting claims for Title IX violations, Equal Protection and wrongful death. He also filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the boy’s healthcare providers for failing to take appropriate steps to address his documented risk of committing suicide. Both cases were settled.

The adage “There’s no crueler place than the playground” is illustrated in Jane Doe v. Acme School Corp. Jane was 14-year old girl with autism who had been bullied at school for several years. The bullying was so severe that she became depressed and attempted to commit suicide. Eventually she was forced to withdraw from the school. Her parents hired Tom to file suit against the school district in federal court alleging claims for disability discrimination under the ADA, Equal Protection and negligence. The case was settled for an undisclosed amount.

Tom was on a team of lawyers who represented a boy who played high school basketball in Hayden v. Greensburg Cmty. School Corp. He was not allowed to play on the boys’ team because his haircut did not comply with the school’s grooming policy. His parents filed suit in federal court, challenging the school’s haircut policy on substantive due process, Equal Protection and Title IX grounds. Tom argued for a preliminary injunction in the district court, which was denied. The family appealed that ruling and got it reversed by the Seventh Circuit.

Blessing v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration was a major victory for adults with disabilities. Tom filed suit on behalf of his son to challenge a state Medicaid rule rendering people with autism ineligible for ABA therapy benefits after the age of 20. The courtruled that the age restriction discriminates against individuals on the basis of disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Tom served as a co-counsel representing a young girl with autism who was confined to her desk at school for extended periods in Jane Doe v. Anonymous School District and School Employees. Her parents filed a civil rights lawsuit against the school district and several staff in federal court. The school filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied. After several depositions, the case settled on the first morning of trial for a confidential amount.

Sometimes a lack of proper training leads to school staff abusing students with disabilities. In John Doe v. Anonymous Public School District and Anonymous School Employees, several school employees resigned after Tom filed suit against them in federal court on behalf of a boy with autism who had been repeatedly confined to a small room at school. Impatient and frustrated, staff were placing him seclusion as a form of punishment or for their own convenience, even when he posed no risk of injury to anyone. They kept him there for extended periods of time, on two occasions for an entire school day. One brave “whistleblower” who worked for the school district testified that staff had been placing students with disabilities in seclusion for hours at a time. The case was settled in mediation for an undisclosed sum.

In an even more horrific case of sadistic abuse by school employees, Jane Doe v. Anonymous School Corp., Tom represented a six-year-old girl with a disability who had been placed in a small (3’ x 5’) closet which had been converted into a seclusion room by school staff over 100 times—sometimes multiple times per day. The school would not let her participate in extracurricular activities and staff would force her to eat lunch by herself and remain in the seclusion room until a timer went off. They denied her access to a restroom, causing her to wet her pants and forcing sit in her own urine-soaked clothes. The school’s abuse of the girl was so outrageous that it prompted an investigation by The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.

In Hughes v. State, Tom represented a wrongfully convicted man who had been sentenced to 10 years in prison for burglary. Another lawyer represented him during the jury trial and Tom was retained to handle the appeal. Tom wrote a brief then argued the case before a three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of Tom’s client and reversed his conviction.

Personal Injury

In James Doe v. Anonymous School District, Tom was on a team of lawyers who represented a 15-year old boy who sustained life-threatening injuries after being shot at school. The shooting received national media coverage. At a hearing in the trial court, Tom defeated the school’s motion for summary judgment and the school appealed. Following an oral argument, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Tom’s client. Shortly after that ruling, the case was settled at mediation.

Yet another example of the grave dangers faced by individuals with disabilities on a daily basis is James Doe v. Acme Children’s Home. James was a 13-year old boy with a disability who was placed in a residential facility because his parents were unable to care for him at home. He had a documented history of running away from the parents’ home and residential facilities. Due to inadequate supervision, James and several other residents ran away from the group home. James was sexually assaulted by a female in the group and forced to watch another girl being gang raped by the boys. After filing suit, the case was settled in mediation for an undisclosed amount.

In Mary Doe v. Acme Trucking, Inc. and John Doe, Tom represented a woman who was driving with her son in the backseat when their vehicle rolled to a stop on the freeway after stalling due to a mechanical problem. Although it was broad daylight, she was rearended by a tractor-trailer whose driver was speeding and not paying attention. Her son was killed in the impact, which rendered her a paraplegic. Tom filed suit against the trucking company and driver. After hiring numerous experts, taking several depositions across the country, defeating a defense motion for summary judgment and multiple mediation sessions, Tom negotiated a settlement for more than $3 million.

Wrongful Death

One of Tom’s first jury trials as a young lawyer was Estate of Newby v. Goodyear, a wrongful death action. He represented the wife of man who was killed by a drunk driver who was speeding and ran a red light in downtown Indianapolis. The jury awarded his client $750,000.

Some of the most vulnerable among us are people with disabilities. A heartbreaking example of the dangers they face every day is highlighted in the tragic case of James Doe v. Acme Group Home. Tom was hired by the parents of a disabled young man who lived in a residential facility and required 24-hour supervision because he had a well-documented history of putting foreign objects in his mouth and swallowing them, which was known to management and staff at the group home. James died when he choked on a small therapy ball which staff had left in his room overnight. Tom filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the home which was settled for a confidential amount.

Sexual Harassment/Assault

Tom represented a disabled eight year old girl who was exposed to pornography and sexually assaulted by a female classmate when the girls were left unsupervised at school in Jane Doe v. Acme School Corp. Tom filed a negligence lawsuit against the school district which was settled early during mediation for an undisclosed sum.

In Jane Doe v. Anonymous Jail Employees, Tom represented a female inmate who was sexually assaulted by other inmates in a county jail. Several correctional officers knew that she was being assaulted but did nothing to stop it. After filing suit in federal court, the case was settled in mediation for a confidential sum.

In Mary Doe v. M.S.D. of Acme Township, Tom represented a 13-year old girl who was repeatedly sexually harassed and assaulted by a group of boys at school. After filing a negligent supervision lawsuit against the district, the case was settled for an undisclosed amount.

Tom represented a seven-year old boy who had been exposed to pornography and sexually assaulted by male classmates when left unsupervised at school in John Doe v. Anonymous Charter School. The case was settled before trial for an undisclosed sum.

In John Doe v. Acme School Corp., Tom represented a high school boy with Down Syndrome who was sexually assaulted by a male classmate when the boys were allowed to use the restroom together without supervision, despite the classmate’s known history of sexually inappropriate behavior. The case was settled for an undisclosed sum.

Tom represented a six-year old boy who was repeatedly sexually harassed and molested by a male classmate at school in John Doe v. Acme Community Schools and Anonymous School Employees. The family filed suit in federal court alleging negligence and civil rights violations under Title IX and Section 1983. The case was settled for an undisclosed amount during a settlement conference.

In Jane Does 1-3 v. Anonymous School Corp. and Anonymous Teacher, Tom represented three female high school students who had been groomed by their male teacher over a period of years. The teacher would meet with the girls in his office with the door closed, touch them inappropriately, kiss and hug them, make inappropriate comments, jokes and sexual innuendos. He would comment on their appearance, outfits and pictures, both in person and on social media. Following a mediation, the school district settled all three cases for an undisclosed sum. As part of the settlement, the school agreed to (a) audit staff compliance with school policies governing staff interactions with students, (b) adopt an anti-grooming policy, (c) utilize a third party to train staff on how to identify and prevent grooming, and (d) provide parents with a list of resources on how to identify grooming behavior.