S.H. Ex Rel. Durrell v. Lower Merion School District
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18458
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- S.H. is African-American and attended Lower Merion School District from kindergarten; she was placed in Title I and later designated as disabled in 2004, receiving special education services through middle school.
- Evaluation in 2004-2005 concluded a learning disability based on a discrepancy between IQ-based expected achievement and actual scores; Durrell approved the IEPs and NOREP supporting special education placement.
- S.H. showed improved reading ability after placement (e.g., January 2005 Woodcock Reading Mastery Test results) and continued to receive ISL services through middle school with accompanying accommodations.
- In 2007–2009, the district reevaluated and trimmed services, eventually removing S.H. from special education after an IEE in 2010 concluded she was not disabled; Durrell consented to the reevaluation and NOREP/guided changes.
- Durrell filed a federal suit in 2010 alleging IDEA, RA, and ADA violations; the district court dismissed IDEA and later granted summary judgment on RA and ADA claims, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does IDEA extend to misidentified non-disabled children? | Durrell argues misidentification falls within IDEA protections. | Lower Merion contends IDEA protects only children with disabilities. | No; IDEA covers only children with disabilities. |
| Are compensatory damages available under RA/ADA without intentional discrimination? | Durrell seeks compensatory damages for misidentification. | Lower Merion argues RA/ADA damages require intentional discrimination. | Compensatory damages require intentional discrimination (deliberate indifference standard). |
| What standard governs intentional discrimination under RA/ADA in this context? | Deliberate indifference should be sufficient to establish discrimination. | Deliberate indifference standard should apply; it aligns with policy goals. | Court adopts deliberate indifference standard as the appropriate measure. |
| Did the School District have knowledge of misidentification and fail to act? | Evidence shows S.H. felt she did not belong in special education and test scores rose; district knew. | Evidence does not show actual knowledge before 2010; actions were timely after new evaluation. | No genuine dispute as to knowledge; district did not act with deliberate indifference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meagley v. City of Little Rock, 639 F.3d 384 (8th Cir. 2011) (ADA/RA damages require intentional discrimination)
- guardian’s Association v. Civil Service Commission of New York, 463 U.S. 582 (1983) (Title VI damages require intentional discrimination)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) (Title VI remedies guide RA/ADA damages)
- Ridgewood Bd. of Ed. v. N.E. ex rel. M.E., 172 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 1999) (discussed remedies for discrimination under RA/ADA)
- Pryor v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 288 F.3d 548 (3d Cir. 2002) (previous view on deliberate indifference later reconciled)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (deliberate indifference framework in discrimination claims)
- Davis v. Monroe Cnty., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (deliberate indifference in school context)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (context for discrimination and notice concepts)
- Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) (statutory interpretation and plain meaning principles)