B.C. v. Mount Vernon School District, 660 F. App'x 93

Plaintiffs (B.C. and T.H., on behalf of their daughters J.C. and T.H.) challenged Mount Vernon City School District and NYSED practices for scheduling Academic Intervention Services (AIS) during regular school hours, alleging AIS supplanted credit-bearing courses and harmed students with disabilities.
Claims: violations of the IDEA, ADA, Section 504, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (for alleged IDEA violations). Plaintiffs sought money damages and equitable relief.
District Court rulings: (1) dismissed ADA and Section 504 claims against NYSED for failure to state a claim; (2) granted summary judgment to District Defendants on IDEA and § 1983 claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (3) granted summary judgment to District Defendants on ADA/Section 504 merits (addressed in separate opinion).
On appeal, plaintiffs conceded some claims were moot; plaintiffs’ claims for monetary relief under ADA, Section 504, and § 1983 (to the extent based on IDEA violations) remained at issue.
Central factual/legal dispute: whether scheduling AIS during school hours (permitted, not mandated, by NYSED regulations) violated federal disability laws or whether exhaustion or other doctrines barred relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing and mootness	Plaintiffs argued they had standing and sought damages/equitable relief	Defendants argued lack of standing and mootness for injunctive claims after graduation	Plaintiffs have standing for money damages; injunctive claims are moot because students graduated
IDEA exhaustion (District Defendants)	Exhaustion would be futile because District failed to implement IEP services	Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies	Failure to exhaust; exception for futility not met — summary judgment for District on IDEA and related § 1983 claims
ADA/Section 504 liability against NYSED	NYSED regulations permitting AIS during school hours cause disparate impact and NYSED was deliberately indifferent	NYSED argued regulations only permit (not mandate) AIS during school hours and do not show deliberate indifference	Plaintiffs failed to plead NYSED deliberate indifference; claims dismissed for failure to state a claim
Scope/remedy	Plaintiffs sought injunctive and monetary relief	Defendants sought dismissal or summary judgment	Monetary claims under ADA/Section 504 survive; equitable relief moot; other claims dismissed as above

Fulton v. Goord, 591 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 2009) (standing and redressability principles for civil rights suits)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements)
Fox v. Bd. of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y., 42 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 1994) (student graduation moots injunctive claims)
J.S. ex rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Schs., 386 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2004) (IDEA administrative exhaustion requirement)
Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 297 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2002) (exceptions to IDEA exhaustion: futility, policy of general applicability, inadequate relief)
Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 2002) (failure to implement IEP does not automatically excuse exhaustion)
Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2009) (deliberate indifference standard for § 504/ADA claims)
Mullins v. City of New York, 653 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)