R.K. v. Board of Education of Scott County, 494 F. App'x 589

R.K. is a four-year-old with Type 1 diabetes who needed insulin management at school and attended Eastern Elementary, which lacked a full-time nurse.
R.K. was assigned to Anne Mason Elementary (AMES), which had a full-time nurse, after the district denied enrollment at Eastern Elementary in August 2009.
R.K.’s parents filed a federal suit alleging violations of § 504, the ADA, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Kentucky law over the placement decision and denial of a transfer.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Board of Education of Scott County and Superintendent Putty on all counts.
On appeal, the court vacated the district court’s judgment in part and remanded for further proceedings; the appeal regarding the 60(b) motion was dismissed as moot.
The record is sparse: no discovery was conducted; only three affidavits and a letter exist, raising questions about whether an individualized assessment was performed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court err in granting summary judgment on ADA/§504 claims based on the placement decision?	R.K. asserts the Board failed to conduct an individualized assessment and discriminated based on diabetes.	Board decisions were individualized, considering multiple factors beyond nurse availability.	Genuine issues of material fact remain; summary judgment improper.
Is Patricia Putty immune from suit, given lack of allegations against her in the complaint and on appeal?	Putty should not have immunity for potential official-capacity actions.	No viable claims were presented against Putty; immunity applies.	Putty entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Should the case be remanded to permit discovery to clarify how the AMES placement decision was made and what factors were considered?	Discovery is needed to resolve whether individualized assessment occurred and the exact decision process.	Record is insufficient to adjudicate; discovery could illuminate the decision process.	Remand for discovery and potential amendment to the complaint is appropriate.

Monks v. General Elec. Co., 919 F.2d 1189 (6th Cir. 1990) (affidavits lacking personal knowledge must be disregarded under Rule 56(e))
State Mut. Life Assurance Co. v. Deer Creek Park, 612 F.2d 259 (6th Cir. 1979) (affidavits composed of hearsay and opinion evidence excluded)