837 F.3d 152
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs B.C. and T.H. sued Mount Vernon City School District and NYSED officials alleging ADA and Section 504 disparate-impact discrimination because the District scheduled non-credit Academic Intervention Services (AIS) during school hours.
- Both plaintiffs’ daughters were classified as IDEA-eligible students and were placed in AIS courses that were non–credit-bearing; many IDEA-classified students took AIS at higher rates than non-IDEA students.
- Plaintiffs relied on district-wide statistics showing IDEA-eligible students received AIS at substantially higher rates than non-IDEA students to prove disparate impact under the ADA and Section 504.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding IDEA exhaustion was excused as futile and that plaintiffs’ statistics did not show disparate impact under the ADA/Section 504 because IDEA “disability” is not coterminous with ADA/Section 504 “disability.”
- On appeal, the Second Circuit considered whether an IDEA disability automatically satisfies the ADA/Section 504 definition of "disability" for purposes of a statistics-based disparate-impact claim and affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDEA eligibility conclusively establishes "disability" under the ADA/Section 504 for a disparate-impact claim | IDEA classification suffices; therefore statistics comparing IDEA vs non-IDEA students show disparate impact against persons with disabilities under ADA/Section 504 | IDEA and ADA/Section 504 use different definitions; statistics limited to IDEA eligibility do not prove ADA/Section 504 disability | No. IDEA eligibility does not automatically establish ADA/Section 504 disability; plaintiffs’ statistics were insufficient to make prima facie disparate-impact showing |
| Whether plaintiffs must exhaust IDEA administrative remedies before ADA/Section 504 claims | Plaintiffs argued exhaustion should not bar their district-wide policy challenge | Defendants argued IDEA exhaustion applies | District-wide policy claims can be excused from IDEA exhaustion on futility grounds; the court accepted the futility exception but ruled for defendants on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellenberg v. N.M. Military Inst., 572 F.3d 815 (10th Cir. 2009) (IDEA eligibility does not necessarily satisfy ADA substantial-limitation requirement)
- Rodriguez v. Village Green Realty, Inc., 788 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2015) (receipt of IDEA services alone is not determinative of disability under statutes defining substantial limits on major life activities)
- Tsombanidis v. W. Haven Fire Dep’t, 352 F.3d 565 (2d Cir. 2003) (elements of a disparate-impact claim and need for statistical evidence)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard when nonmoving party bears burden of proof)
- Mullins v. City of New York, 653 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2011) (de novo review of summary judgment)