B.M. v. South Callaway R-II School District
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20984
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- B.M., a student with escalating behavioral problems beginning in 2007, was evaluated by outside doctors (ADHD, dysthymia) and received school-based interventions (chill-out room, teacher placement, facilitator).
- Ms. Miller delayed or refused District IDEA evaluation paperwork multiple times due to privacy/family concerns; later requested § 504 evaluation in September 2008; District completed IDEA evaluation, found B.M. ineligible, and then proposed § 504 plans starting December 2008 with revisions through 2009.
- OCR investigated and found two regulatory violations implementing § 504/ADA (suspension criteria and notice materials); District entered voluntary compliance; OCR rejected 12 other complaints and did not find wrongful intent.
- The Millers sued under § 504 and Title II (ADA) alleging failure to evaluate, accommodate, and follow procedures; district court granted summary judgment for the District, initially on IDEA-exhaustion grounds, then on lack of genuine dispute of bad faith/gross misjudgment.
- On appeal the Millers challenged the bad-faith/gross-misjudgment standard and presented facts of delay, suspensions, and OCR findings; the court declined to consider new arguments raised too late and affirmed summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs must prove school acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment for ADA/§504 claims based on educational services | Millers argued the bad-faith/gross-misjudgment requirement should not apply | District relied on Eighth Circuit precedent requiring bad faith/gross misjudgment | Court applied existing precedent: plaintiffs must show bad faith or gross misjudgment |
| Whether District’s delays and conduct demonstrated bad faith or gross misjudgment | Millers pointed to notice, delays in §504 evaluation/plan, suspensions, and OCR findings | District showed repeated, ongoing efforts to assist B.M., cooperation with outside providers, and prompt §504 implementation after IDEA evaluation | No genuine dispute of bad faith/gross misjudgment; summary judgment for District |
| Whether OCR findings establish wrongful intent or substitute for bad-faith showing | Millers relied on OCR’s regulatory violations as evidence of misconduct | District noted OCR found limited procedural violations and entered compliance; OCR did not find wrongful intent | OCR findings of statutory non-compliance insufficient alone to prove bad faith/gross misjudgment |
| Whether IDEA administrative exhaustion barred relief (preservation) | Millers argued exhaustion was futile (raised later) | District argued plaintiffs failed to exhaust IDEA remedies before bringing ADA/§504 claims | District court earlier invoked exhaustion but ultimately affirmed on merits; appellate court did not reach new futility arguments raised late |
Key Cases Cited
- Birmingham v. Omaha Sch. Dist., 220 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2000) (requires showing bad faith or gross misjudgment for ADA/§504 educational claims)
- M.Y. ex rel. J.Y. v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 544 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2008) (bad-faith/gross-misjudgment standard explained)
- Monahan v. Nebraska, 687 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1982) (educational malpractice distinction; statutory noncompliance alone insufficient)
- M.P. ex rel. K. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 721, 326 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2003) (notice plus delay can, in some circumstances, evidence bad faith)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden principles)