289 F.R.D. 614
D. Idaho2013Background
- This case involves disability discrimination claims under the ADA and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act seeking a FAPE for M.A. in two Idaho school districts, MSD and BSD.
- M.A. has Asperger’s Syndrome and High Functioning Autism; he attended MSD since 2004 and was later placed at BSD during detention in 2009-2010.
- MSD removed M.A. from IDEA-based services in 2008; BSD later issued a 2010 eligibility report finding no IDEA eligibility but noted potential 504 accommodations.
- M.A. returned to MSD in 2010 with a 504 plan; his parents sought reevaluation, which MSD denied, prompting various IDEA/Section 504 proceedings and federal actions.
- A March 2012 504 hearing officer found no violation by either district; several related federal actions followed, including a later attempt to amend the complaint with a §1983 claim.
- The court granted in part and denied in part several motions, including allowing deposition of M.A. with a psychologist as a support person and striking Count III of the Second Amended Complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference standard applicable to §504/ADA claims | Dale contends districts knowingly failed to address M.A.'s needs causing discrimination. | MSD/BSD argue actions show accommodations, not deliberate indifference. | Genuine factual disputes preclude summary judgment on deliberate indifference. |
| Statute of limitations governing damages | Dale argues applicable limitations period should permit damages within the discovery window. | Districts urge a two-year personal injury period should bar earlier damages. | Court applies Idaho two-year personal injury limit for §1983/§504/ADA context and denies summary judgment on the issue. |
| M.A.'s parents' standing to seek damages | Dale and J.A. have standing to pursue damages under §504/ADA on behalf of their son. | Districts challenge parental standing to recover damages not arising from Blanchard criteria. | Parents have standing to seek compensatory damages; type of damages remains to be resolved later. |
| Bullying as a basis for §504/ADA discrimination | Bullying evidence, coupled with knowledge and indifference, violates §504 and supports FAPE denial. | MSD argues bullying claim is inadequately pled and limited by limitations and lack of indifference. | Summary judgment denied; triable issues on severity, knowledge, and deliberate indifference remain. |
| Deposition of M.A. and use of a support person | Deposition should be terminated/limited due to disability-related communication issues; psychologist can attend as a support person. | Deposition appropriate with boundaries; psychologist attendance should be allowed as support. | Deposition allowed with psychologist present as support; scope limited to relevant issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1999) (peer-on-peer harassment must be severe, pervasive, and occur with knowledge and indifference)
- Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge plus failure to act; proper standard for §504/ADA damages)
- Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2008) (private right of action under §504; damages require intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference)
- Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (ties choice of state limitations to federal §1983 claims; rejects piecemeal approach)
- Gowin v. Altmiller, 663 F.2d 820 (9th Cir. 1981) (pre-Wilson; three-year statutory basis for §1983 claims later rejected by Wilson)
- Ms. H. v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 784 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (private §504 claim requires nexus; regulatory violations alone do not establish §504 claim)