A.G. Ex Rel. Grundemann v. Paradise Valley Unified School District No. 69
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3994
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- A.G., a student eligible for special education, exhibited escalating behavioral problems in 2009–2010; an IEP Addendum moved her from Vista Verde (mainstream gifted program) to Roadrunner (school for emotional disturbances).
- At Roadrunner A.G. had multiple incidents involving physical restraint and arrests (later dismissed); she was later placed in a private psychiatric school at district expense.
- Plaintiffs filed IDEA administrative claims and later sued in federal court under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, and Arizona tort law; IDEA claims were settled and released, leaving § 504/ADA and state tort claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all remaining claims; plaintiffs appealed and defendants cross‑appealed a postjudgment costs order.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment on § 504/ADA claims (meaningful access, reasonable accommodation, and deliberate indifference), affirmed dismissal of IIED and NIED, reversed dismissal of assault, battery, and false imprisonment claims, vacated the costs ruling, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placement/practices denied A.G. "meaningful access" under §504/Title II | Roadrunner placement and use of an Intervention Room and lack of curricular/offered services denied access compared to non-disabled peers | Parents consented to placement; A.G. was unqualified for some classes due to refusal and parental participation in IEP | Reversed: parental consent did not waive §504/Title II meaningful access claim; remand to evaluate preserved regulatory claims and causation |
| Whether defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations (FBA, BIP, full‑time aide) | Additional behavioral supports were reasonable, available, and would have allowed A.G. to remain in Vista Verde | Plaintiffs cannot assume accommodations would have worked; parents did not request specific services | Reversed: genuine dispute exists whether accommodations were reasonable, necessary, and available |
| Whether plaintiffs proved deliberate indifference (mens rea) for damages | The district had notice or the need for accommodation was obvious based on behavior, teacher emails, and expert report | Lack of legal obligation or explicit notice negates deliberate indifference | Reversed: factual dispute on notice/obviousness; expert testimony did not negate constructive notice; remand for factual inquiry |
| State torts: IIED/NIED vs. assault, battery, false imprisonment | IIED/NIED, assault/battery, and false imprisonment arise from district staff restraint/escort and policies | Conduct not extreme/outrageous for IIED; restraint was authorized when student posed danger; no intent for assault/battery | Affirmed dismissal of IIED and NIED; reversed summary judgment on assault, battery, and false imprisonment (genuine factual disputes exist) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguishing IDEA and §504 standards for FAPE)
- Mark H. v. Hamamoto, 620 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements for §504/Title II claims and meaningful access standard)
- Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (deliberate indifference and notice for damages under §504)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (§504 requires meaningful access to benefits)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (limits private enforcement of regulations to those authoritatively construing statute)
- K.M. ex rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2013) (differences between Title II and §504 standards)
- Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2004) (limits on expert testimony as to legal conclusions)
- Duncan v. Scottsdale Med. Imaging, Ltd., 70 P.3d 435 (Ariz. 2003) (battery requires intentional harmful or offensive contact)