G. v. The Fay School, 931 F.3d 1

Background

G, a minor who alleges Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS), attended Fay School (private pre-K–9 school) and his parents repeatedly requested the school limit Wi‑Fi exposure or provide Ethernet accommodations.
The school installed Wi‑Fi campus‑wide; after parents’ complaints the school investigated, sought medical documentation, and ultimately installed Ethernet ports and offered seating adjustments, but refused to remove Wi‑Fi or create a Wi‑Fi‑free classroom.
Parents claimed the school retaliated against them for opposing a practice they characterized as unlawful under Title III of the ADA and also asserted breach of contract and misrepresentation based on handbook language; G later withdrew and completed grades elsewhere.
District court excluded key expert testimony (Dr. Hubbuch) after Daubert hearings, granted summary judgment to Fay on Title III (moot), contract, and misrepresentation claims, but initially allowed a Title V retaliation claim to proceed; later ruled damages (including nominal) are not available under Title V when the underlying protection is Title III and dismissed the retaliation claim as moot for equitable relief.
On appeal, the First Circuit addressed whether Title V allows damages for retaliation premised on opposition under Title III, and whether handbook language supported breach of contract or knowing misrepresentation claims under Massachusetts law; the court affirmed the district court in all respects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Title V permits damages (compensatory or nominal) for retaliation based on opposition under Title III of the ADA	Title V’s cross‑reference to remedies in §§ 12117, 12133, 12188 makes all remedies (including damages under Title I) available for retaliation claims generally	§12203(c)’s “respectively” limits remedies to those corresponding to the Title at issue; here Title III’s §12188 allows only preventive injunctive relief, not damages	Affirmed: Damages (compensatory or nominal) are not available for a Title V retaliation claim premised on opposition under Title III; only injunctive relief under §12188 applies, and claim for injunctive relief is moot here
Whether the retaliation claim retained an equitable remedy despite G’s withdrawal and completion of school elsewhere	Family argued claim was not moot because nominal damages or other relief could vindicate rights	School argued equitable relief was moot due to lack of reasonable expectation G would return; damages unavailable	Affirmed: claim for injunctive relief is moot; nominal damages not available under §12188
Whether handbook language created a binding contract under Massachusetts law	Family argued handbook statements (core values, promises to help/work with students in need) were definite enough to form enforceable promises	Fay argued the handbook contained generalized, aspirational language and an explicit enrollment disclaimer stating handbook is not a contract	Affirmed summary judgment for Fay: handbook language was too vague/aspirational to form a contract; enrollment agreement’s disclaimer reinforced this result
Whether handbook statements supported a knowing misrepresentation claim	Family argued the school’s dismissive staff emails and inclusion of a contractual disclaimer showed the school knowingly made false statements in the handbook	Fay argued the emails are isolated and do not prove knowledge; disclaimer's inclusion is not evidence the school knew handbook statements were false	Affirmed summary judgment for Fay: no triable issue that Fay knowingly made false statements; evidence was speculative and inadmissible or insufficient

Key Cases Cited

Goodwin v. C.N.J., Inc., 436 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2006) (Title III remedial scheme provides only preventive injunctive relief)
Jones v. Walgreen Co., 679 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2012) (elements of a Title V retaliation claim explained)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial judge’s gatekeeping role for expert testimony)
Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (nominal damages recognize a past wrong but do not equate to prospective injunctional relief)
Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2001) (statutory construction canon against rendering words superfluous)
Mangla v. Brown Univ., 135 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 1998) (student handbook can form contract if language is sufficiently definite)