A.C. Ex Rel. J.C. v. Shelby County Board of Education, 711 F.3d 687

A.C. is a minor with Type 1 diabetes; her parents sought accommodations (nurse, classroom testing, peanut-free zone, in-class blood tests) at Bon Lin Elementary within Shelby County Board of Education (SCBE).
Tensions between Bon Lin officials and the family escalated, including complaints to the OCR and eventually DCS investigations and reports alleging medical abuse.
Bon Lin's testing and monitoring arrangements involved state-of-the-art glucose monitoring and a pump; the school primarily used a clinic for testing, but parents requested classroom testing and in-class monitoring.
By October 2009, conflicts intensified over testing location and IHPs; A.C.’s glucose levels fluctuated, often outside target ranges, prompting repeated concerns by school staff.
On October 30, 2009, Principal Williams reported to DCS that the parents abused A.C. and that the child could die at school, leading to a DCS investigation; DCS later found the medical maltreatment allegation unfounded.
Plaintiffs filed suit alleging retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the ADA, arguing the DCS Reports were retaliatory for accommodation requests; the district court granted summary judgment for SCBE.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the DCS reports constitute adverse action under McDonnell Douglas.	Plaintiffs contend reports were retaliatory, not mere protective actions.	SCBE argues reports were protective, not retaliatory, and protected by good-faith immunity.	No; DCS reports can be adverse action in this context.
Whether plaintiffs proved a prima facie retaliation case.	Protected activity (accommodations) and causal link shown; adverse action shown by DCS reports.	Prima facie burden met but SCBE’s non-retaliatory reasons could negate causation.	Plaintiffs met the prima facie burden; causation remains for trial.
Whether SCBE’s reasons for the DCS reports were non-retaliatory and sufficient.	SCBE’s reasons rely on false premises and health misperceptions; pretext shown by falsity and timing.	SCBE presented ten non-retaliatory reasons tied to health concerns and duty to report.	SCBE carried its burden of articulating non-retaliatory reasons; issue of pretext for trial.
Whether pretext can be shown under the honest-belief rule and state-law presumption without error.	Even if honest belief applies, record shows possible errors suggesting retaliation.	Honest belief defense forecloses if reasons not reasonably informed; state law presumption influences standard.	Pretext remains a jury issue; federal standard applies for summary judgment.”}] ,{

DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2004) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting standard in retaliation claims)
Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2000) (Prima facie retaliation burden; temporal proximity evidence)
Cox v. Warwick Valley Central School District, 654 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2011) (First Amendment case; distinguishes from ADA/Section 504 context; not controlling for prima facie stage)
Weixel v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y., 287 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2002) (Protective vs. punitive reports; retaliation context for adverse action)
Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City of Springboro, 477 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2007) (Pretext and causation questions under summary judgment)
Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 1997) (Pretext and evidence weighing in retaliation analysis)
Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 1998) (Honest-belief/reasonableness standard at pretext stage)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (Burden-shifting framework for retaliation)
Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc., 505 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2007) (Burden shifting; proof required to survive summary judgment)
R.K. v. Bd. of Educ. of Scott Cnty., Ky., 494 F. App’x 589 (6th Cir. 2012) (Preemption issues in ADA/Section 504 context; leave to brief on remand)