589 F. App'x 594
3d Cir.2014Background
- T.F., a kindergarten student with a severe tree-nut allergy, and his parents sued Fox Chapel Area School District alleging disability discrimination and denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under Section 504 and Pennsylvania law.
- Fox Chapel adopted a district-wide food allergy policy (May 2010) and proposed multiple 504 Plans for T.F. in June–October 2010; parents repeatedly rejected drafts as insufficiently detailed.
- Fox Chapel sent a proposed 504 Plan to T.F.’s treating physician, who approved it; staff received training to recognize anaphylaxis and administer epinephrine.
- Parents withdrew T.F. from the district in December 2010, enrolled him in a charter/private school, and sought administrative and later judicial relief; a hearing officer found no discrimination or FAPE denial.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Fox Chapel; the parents appealed. The Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fox Chapel denied T.F. a FAPE under Section 504 by providing non‑individualized or inadequate 504 Plan | Fox Chapel relied on a generic district policy and refused requested specific accommodations, so the 504 Plan was not individualized and denied FAPE | Fox Chapel developed and revised individualized 504 plans, incorporated accommodations beyond the district policy, and obtained physician approval; training and district policy covered other measures | Court held plaintiffs failed to show denial of FAPE; proposed plans plus district policy/training were adequate |
| Whether failure to adopt parents’ requested details deprived them of procedural enforcement remedies | Parents claimed lack of written agreement prevented access to OCR/Department enforcement | Fox Chapel and Department procedures (and direct contact by parents with Department advisor) provided available procedural remedies and investigation | Court held parents had access to procedural safeguards and did not lose enforcement remedies |
| Standard for tuition reimbursement/compensatory relief: must plaintiffs prove intentional discrimination or simple FAPE denial? | Plaintiffs argued tuition reimbursement is equitable and not subject to heightened intentional-discrimination standard | Fox Chapel and district court treated tuition reimbursement as compensatory damages requiring proof of intentional discrimination (deliberate indifference) | Court agreed tuition reimbursement is compensatory and requires proof of deliberate indifference; plaintiffs could not meet that standard |
| Whether Fox Chapel acted with deliberate indifference regarding T.F.’s rights | Plaintiffs asserted school’s refusal to adopt all requested measures showed deliberate indifference | Fox Chapel argued it actively worked with parents, proposed multiple plans, consulted physician, and trained staff—no deliberate indifference | Court held no deliberate indifference; undisputed facts show Fox Chapel acted reasonably and not with deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- S.H. ex rel. Durrell v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 729 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2013) (standard for FAPE under Section 504 and deliberate‑indifference test for compensatory damages)
- Ridley Sch. Dist. v. M.R., 680 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2012) (schools required to take reasonable steps to accommodate, not to implement every parental request)