Kimble v. Douglas County School District Re-1
925 F. Supp. 2d 1176
D. Colo.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Janet and Tyrone Kimble are guardians of B.K., a minor with a qualifying disability under IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
- Douglas County School District RE-1 is the public school district responsible for B.K.’s education and compliance with IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
- Prior to the events, B.K. was found eligible for special education under IDEA and had an IEP; Plaintiffs initially consented to IDEA services.
- In May 2010, Plaintiffs revoked consent to IDEA services, stating B.K. would no longer receive special education and related services; the district notified that B.K. would be a general education student and that Section 504 would effectively be her plan.
- At a Section 504 meeting on August 4, 2010, the district proposed a plan that mirrored the May 19, 2010 IEP, which Plaintiffs rejected as they had revoked consent to the IDEA plan.
- The court later held that revocation of IDEA consent does not erase protections under Section 504 or the ADA, and that the district still had ongoing duties to provide a FAPE under Section 504, though Plaintiffs rejected the 504 plan and the case proceeded to denial of the motion for summary judgment.]
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revoking IDEA consent eliminates Section 504/ADA obligations. | Kimble argues revocation ends accommodations. | DCSD contends an IDEA-based plan suffices for 504/ADA obligations. | No; revocation does not erase Section 504/ADA protections. |
| Whether a Section 504 plan based on an IDEA-developed IEP can satisfy 504/ADA FAPE obligations. | Kimble asserts 504 requires separate accommodations beyond the revoked IDEA plan. | DCSD argues implementing the IDEA-based IEP suffices to meet 504/ADA FAPE. | A 504 plan may be satisfied by implementing an IDEA-aligned plan, but the district’s attempt to rely on the revoked IDEA plan is not automatically discriminatory. |
| Whether after revocation the district must offer other accommodations to prevent discrimination. | Kimble contends 504/ADA require ongoing accommodations despite revocation. | DCSD maintains it can offer alternate accommodations under 504 to meet FAPE. | District must continue to offer 504 accommodations to prevent discrimination, even if IDEA services are not provided. |
| Whether the court should grant summary judgment for the defendant based on the record. | Kimble seeks judgment in her favor on 504/ADA claims. | DCSD seeks judgment in its favor, arguing compliance with 504 through IDEA or 504 plan. | Plaintiffs’ motion denied; defendant’s position granted on the record as a cross-motion for summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellenberg v. N.M. Military Inst., 478 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2007) (IDEA funds conditions and FAPE concepts in context of disabilities)
- Miller v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch., 565 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir. 2009) (IDEA FAPE; interplay with Section 504)
- Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2008) (FAPE under 504 can be met without IDEA compliance; 504 broader than IDEA)
- Nielsen v. Moroni Feed Co., 162 F.3d 604 (10th Cir. 1998) (ADA and Section 504 analysis aligned; same standards apply)
- Kimber v. Thiokol Corp., 196 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 1999) (ADA/504 analysis guidance; language mirrors Rehabilitation Act)