Alston v. District of Columbia
770 F. Supp. 2d 289
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege violations of IDEA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and related DC acts against DC and DCPS officials over 2001–2007.
- IEP for C.A. included Cabin John Middle School (Day program) and a private residential placement at Grafton; Grafton closed Feb 2006.
- Summer 2005: DCPS delayed funding for Cabin John, delaying C.A.’s start; payment finally authorized Sept 28, 2005; settlement memorialized in November 2005 HOD.
- 2006 Exclusion: DCPS failed to arrange residential placement after Grafton closed (Feb 2006) until Woods Services enrollment in Nov 2006.
- March 30, 2010 court denied in part and granted in part summary judgment; remaining ADA/RA claims from Summer 2005 and 2006 Exclusion identified.
- June 1, 2010 court allowed Rule 54(b) motions; defendants moved to alter/amend on Summer 2005 claims; plaintiffs cross-moved on 2006 claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Summer 2005 exclusion claims survive as ADA/RA discrimination | Discrimination shown by denial of FAPE due to disability. | Denial of FAPE alone is insufficient for ADA/RA; no determinative role by disability shown. | Discrimination claims premised on Summer 2005 Exclusion granted to be summary judgment for defendants; no determinative disability role shown. |
| Whether Summer 2005 exclusion supports a retaliation claim | Protected activity (due process filings, letters) linked to Summer 2005 Exclusion. | Temporal gap too long to infer causation; protected activities did not occur proximate to exclusion. | Retaliation claims premised on Summer 2005 Exclusion granted summary judgment for defendants; no causal link shown. |
| Whether 2006 exclusion supports ADA/RA discrimination | Failure to provide a residential placement coupled with prior misconduct shows discrimination. | Denial of FAPE alone is insufficient; must show disability-driven or bad-faith conduct; admissions do not prove that. | Cross-motion to alter/amend denied; plaintiffs not shown disability-driven discrimination or bad faith; summary judgment for defendants stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lunceford v. Dist. of Columbia, 745 F.2d 1577 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Rehabilitation Act requires more than mere denial of FAPE)
- Doe v. Arlington County Sch. Bd., 41 F. Supp. 2d 599 (E.D. Va. 1999) (heightened causation standard under Rehabilitation Act)
- Pinkerton v. Spellings, 529 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 2008) (disability must be a determinative factor in the decision)
- Williams v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth. Police Dep't, 380 F.3d 751 (3d Cir. 2004) (causation standards in ADA retaliation context)
- Diaz-Fonseca v. Puerto Rico, 451 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2006) (ADA claims require more than IDEA denial when recast)
- J.D.P. v. Cherokee Cnty. Sch. Dist., Ga., 735 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (N.D. Ga. 2010) (ADA/RA claims require showing disability-driven discrimination or bad faith)