BM v. South Callaway R-II School District, 2:11-cv-04029

B.M., a minor, sues South Callaway R-II School District in the Western District of Missouri asserting disability-based claims under the ADA and Section 504, with parents Roger and Sharon Miller as plaintiffs and B.M. proceeding via next friends.
The court previously granted summary judgment to South Callaway on grounds that the Millers failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA; the Millers move for reconsideration to address new factual information.
The reconsideration request presents claims about whether B.M. was eligible for IDEA relief in 2008-2009 and whether administrative remedies could be exhausted, potentially affecting the ADA/504 claims.
OCR proceedings in December 2008 and a May 2010 OCR decision found various procedural issues with 504 notices and safeguards, but did not fully resolve the merits of the Millers’ claims.
The court ultimately denies the motion to reconsider except for the exhaustion issue, and reaffirms summary judgment for South Callaway on the merits; the standing issue for plaintiffs remains unresolved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exhaustion of IDEA remedies was required for ADA/504 claims	Millers argued exhaustion could be futile due to lack of IDEA jurisdiction for certain claims	South Callaway maintained exhaustion was required when relief could be obtained under IDEA	Exhaustion required, but reconsideration granted limited to exhaustion issue
Whether South Callaway is entitled to summary judgment on the merits	Disputes about procedures and delays show entitlement to relief	No bad faith or gross misjudgment; proper court-ordered processes followed	South Callaway is entitled to summary judgment on the merits
Whether the Millers have standing to sue under ADA/Section 504 as parents	Parents have standing due to protected interest in child’s education	Standing contested or not necessary to resolve merits	Court does not decide standing; even if present, no bad faith/gross misjudgment shown
Whether the 504/ADA claims require bad faith or gross misjudgment by officials	Procedural violations and delays indicate discrimination	No bad faith or gross misjudgment given professional educational judgments	No bad faith or gross misjudgment; procedural issues insufficient for liability

M.Y. v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 544 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2008) (requires proof of discrimination with heightened standard under §504/ADA)
Monahan v. State of Neb., 687 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1982) (bad faith or gross misjudgment standard for §504 claims)
Heidemann By and Through Heidemann v. Rother, 84 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 1996) (addressed standard for educational decisions under §504/ADA)
Sellers v. Sch. Bd. of City of Manassas, 141 F.3d 524 (4th Cir. 1998) (example of liabilities under §504 in educational context)
Payne v. Peninsula Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2011) (process for determining whether relief sought is available under IDEA)