B. S. v. Carter Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
24-5045
6th Cir.Mar 11, 2025Background
- B.S., a student with CLN3 Batten disease requiring full-time use of a custom wheelchair, attended school with an IEP mandating significant assistance for vehicle access.
- For an October 2021 field trip, the school district did not provide a wheelchair-accessible bus, justifying that its only accessible bus was otherwise used for regular transport of other disabled students.
- The district instead assisted B.S. to board the standard bus using prior methods, leading to severe fatigue and increased seizure risk for B.S.
- B.S. and her mother sued the school district, alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, finding no intentional discrimination nor pleading that the accommodation provided was unreasonable.
- On appeal, B.S. passed away. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal; a dissent argued the failure-to-accommodate claim should proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intentional discrimination | District intentionally denied access due to disability | No facts show intent; bus needed for regular runs | No intentional discrimination shown |
| Failure to accommodate | District failed to provide reasonable accommodation | Existing IEP methods were reasonable | Accommodation provided was reasonable |
| Reasonableness of accommodation | Requested wheelchair-accessible bus was reasonable | Reasonable accommodation not requested/pled | Plaintiff didn’t allege her preferred accommodation was reasonable |
| Mootness of ADA claim | (Not argued at appeal stage; B.S. died pending appeal) | Claim now moot as student no longer enrolled | ADA injunctive/declaratory relief moot after student’s passing |
Key Cases Cited
- S.S. v. E. Ky. Univ., 532 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2008) (sets out three elements for disability discrimination claims under the ADA/Rehabilitation Act)
- Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff must show discriminatory animus was a significant factor)
- Lambert v. Hartman, 517 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing motion to dismiss)
- Royal Truck & Trailer Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Kraft, 974 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2020) (pleading requirements for plausible claims)