1 F. Supp. 3d 1281
M.D. Ala.2014Background
- Jim and Jill Moore sue the Chilton County Board of Education under ADA Title II and §504 for peer-on-peer disability harassment against their daughter A.M., who died by suicide in 2010.
- Plaintiffs allege the Board had actual notice of disability harassment and acted with deliberate indifference, causing discriminatory harm to A.M.
- A.M. had a history of Blount's Disease and substantial weight; she walked with a limp and was teased by peers during 9th-10th grades at Jemison High School.
- Alleged harassment included name-calling and weight-related taunts by cheerleaders and athletes, predominantly in hallways, gym, bus, and cafeteria settings.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court evaluates ADA and §504 claims together using Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education framework.
- The court grants summary judgment, concluding plaintiffs failed to show actual knowledge of disability harassment by an appropriate school official and deliberate indifference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.M. had a disability under the ADA/§504 | Moore asserts Blount's Disease and weight constituted impairments. | Board contends post-surgery impairment evidence is insufficient to prove a disability. | Assume A.M. had a qualifying impairment for summary judgment purposes. |
| Whether harassment was based on disability | Harassment occurred partly due to weight and limp, constituting disability-based harassment. | Harassment evidence tied to weight, not disability; record insufficient to show disability-based motive. | Assumed for summary judgment that harassment was disability-based. |
| Whether harassment was severe or pervasive enough to affect education | Repeated, weight- and gait-related taunts were severe and pervasive enough to deny equal access. | Even if severe, plaintiffs fail to show Board had actual knowledge of disability harassment. | Assumed for purposes of analysis that harassment could be severe/pervasive; actual knowledge not shown. |
| Whether an appropriate person had actual knowledge of the harassment | Multiple teachers/bus driver may have had notice; Giles deemed appropriate; others contested. | Plaintiffs failed to prove which officials were appropriate persons or that they had actual knowledge. | Only Giles is established as an appropriate person; no admissible evidence shows others had actual knowledge. |
| Whether the Board acted with deliberate indifference | Responding actions by Easterling and Lewis could be deemed clearly unreasonable. | Easterling and Lewis acted reasonably given the information; more aggressive action not shown as clearly unreasonable. | No deliberate indifference established; Board not liable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (establishes deliberate indifference framework for peer harassment)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (actual knowledge required for institutional liability; no constructive notice)
- Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007) (defines ‘appropriate person’ and actual knowledge requirement)
- Hawkins v. Sarasota Cnty. Sch. Bd., 322 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2003) (discusses notice/appropriate person framework in Title IX context)
- J.F.K. v. Troup Cnty. Sch. Dist., 678 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2012) (guidance on what constitutes adequate notice of harassment)
- Long v. Murray Cnty. Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 2277836 (11th Cir. 2013) (applies Davis framework to ADA/§504 peer harassment)