CTL Ex Rel. Trebatoski v. Ashland School District
743 F.3d 524
7th Cir.2014Background
- Charlie Lindman, a student with Type 1 diabetes, attended Ashland public schools under a 504 plan specifying insulin-pump use, glucose-monitor alarms, snacks for hypoglycemia, and training of three "Trained Diabetes Personnel."
- School hired nurse Barb Vincent and provided general and device-specific training sessions; the Lindmans contended only Vincent met the "Trained Diabetes Personnel" requirement.
- Conflicts arose after Pam Webber became nurse supervisor over dosing decisions and whether staff could follow parents' adjustments rather than strictly following doctors' orders; Vincent resigned after disciplinary disputes.
- The Lindmans filed an OCR complaint and reached a mediation requiring additional nurse training; disagreements continued over whether Charlie could carry fast-acting glucose and whether bolus dosing could be adjusted case-by-case.
- The Lindmans removed Charlie from public school and enrolled him in private school, then sued under Section 504 and Title II (ADA) seeking damages and injunctive relief; the district court granted summary judgment for the school.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether school intentionally discriminated on basis of disability | Ashland purposely frustrated Lindmans to push Charlie out | School staff were poorly communicative but not intentionally discriminatory | No intentional discrimination proven; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether school failed to reasonably accommodate by not having three Trained Diabetes Personnel | Lindmans: only Vincent was fully qualified; plan required three at all times | School: device-specific training met requirement; only one brief lapse occurred | Shortfall (if any) was minor and did not deny meaningful access; no violation |
| Whether refusal to allow case-by-case bolus adjustments violated 504 | Lindmans: school refused parents' authorized dosing adjustments | School: interpreted doctor orders and Wisconsin law to require use of bolus calculator; refusal was reasonable | School's refusal was reasonable; Lindmans could have obtained clearer doctor orders |
| Whether removing fast-acting glucose and delay in receipt of new doctor orders denied accommodation | Lindmans: glucose was taken in violation of orders; school prevented self-treatment | School: original orders did not allow self-treatment; new orders arrived after school day; nurses followed up with doctor | No evidence school would not comply once orders received; not a failure to accommodate |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Ind. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n Inc., 181 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 1999) (standards for proving disability discrimination)
- Wis. Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 465 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2006) (elements for discrimination under §504)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) (compensatory damages available under ADA/Rehabilitation Act; punitive damages not available)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (meaningful access requirement and reasonable accommodations under disability law)
- Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2007) (minor deviations from individualized plans do not automatically violate IDEA/related frameworks)
- Anderson v. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)