S.B. Ex Rel. A.L. v. Board of Education, 819 F.3d 69

Background

S.B., a disabled student at Aberdeen High School, experienced repeated bullying (verbal, sexual harassment, threats) from classmates; some incidents involved race-based slurs and one episode where S.B. used a racial epithet in response.
S.B.’s parents (A.L. and T.L.) reported numerous incidents; the school investigated reported incidents and imposed disciplinary measures (warnings, conferences, detentions, suspensions). A paraeducator monitored S.B. from Jan–Jun 2013.
S.B. sued the Harford County Board of Education under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA for disability-based discrimination via student-on-student harassment. T.L. (a teacher/athletic director) asserted a § 504 retaliation claim for adverse actions after he advocated for S.B.
The district court dismissed individual defendants and some claims, allowed discovery on the § 504 discrimination and retaliation claims, and later granted summary judgment for the Board, finding no deliberate indifference or causal link for retaliation.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed: it applied the Davis deliberate-indifference framework to § 504 student-on-student harassment claims and held the record showed investigations and remedial measures, not the requisite deliberate indifference; it also held no evidence of causation to sustain T.L.’s retaliation claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a school can be liable under § 504 for student-on-student harassment	S.B.: Board violated § 504 by failing to prevent disability-based harassment that deprived him of educational benefits	Board: § 504 liability for peer misconduct requires deliberate indifference; here the school investigated and disciplined offenders	Court: § 504 claims for peer harassment require Davis deliberate indifference; summary judgment for Board because record shows investigations and remedial steps, not deliberate indifference
Whether harassment was based on disability (element of § 504 claim)	S.B.: harassment was due to his disability	Board: record shows primarily race-based incidents; little evidence tying conduct to disability	Held: Plaintiff failed to show harassment was disability-based; record lacks substantive evidence beyond plaintiff’s affidavit
Whether school response was objectively unreasonable (Davis deliberate indifference)	S.B.: school did little or insufficiently address complaints	Board: school investigated every reported incident, disciplined offenders, assigned paraeducator	Held: No reasonable juror could find response clearly unreasonable; actions taken rebut deliberate indifference
Whether T.L. established § 504 retaliation (causation)	T.L.: adverse employment actions (summer class assignment, practicum denial, banquet tickets) were retaliation for advocacy	Board: actions had legitimate nonretaliatory reasons (scheduling, experience, slot selection); some actions are de minimis	Held: One action (loss of summer class) was materially adverse, but no evidence of causal link; summary judgment for Board because plaintiff failed to show pretext

Key Cases Cited

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (establishes deliberate-indifference standard for school liability for student-on-student harassment)
Sellers v. School Board of City of Manassas, 141 F.3d 524 (4th Cir.) (applies "bad faith or gross misjudgment" standard in IDEA § 504 context involving school-created educational decisions)
Estate of Lance v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 982 (5th Cir.) (applies Davis framework to § 504 student-on-student harassment claims)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (sets burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (defines "materially adverse" standard for retaliation claims)