191 F. Supp. 3d 894
N.D. Ill.2016Background
- Plaintiff Kevin Thurmon Jr., an African-American former student with ADHD and an IDEA classification, attended private parochial Mount Carmel High School, which receives federal funds.
- Starting in high school, Mount Carmel provided Kevin accommodations (extra test time, tutoring); his 2013–14 accommodation plan was attached to the complaint.
- In August 2014 Plaintiff alleges repeated harassment by coaches/teachers Lenti and Blew (verbal denigration, a cheating accusation, refusal to grant accommodations, and alleged interference with college scholarship offers).
- In April 2015 Kevin was disciplined after an incident: other students received three-day suspensions, while Kevin alone was suspended for the rest of the year, required to finish remotely, and barred from graduation and prom.
- Plaintiff filed suit alleging § 1981 race discrimination, § 504 Rehabilitation Act disability discrimination/retaliation, and state claims for interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; he sought a TRO to attend graduation (denied).
- The district court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion: federal claims (§ 1981 and § 504) dismissed for failure to plead facts supporting discriminatory intent or causal nexus; supplemental state claims dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TAC pleads § 1981 race-discrimination actionable under § 1981 | Kevin contends disparate treatment (verbal harassment, harsher discipline, alleged interference with scholarships) shows racial intent and deprivation of contractual benefits | Defendants argue allegations are conclusory, lack factual nexus to race, and do not identify a violated contract term | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to plead discriminatory intent and contractual deprivation plausibly |
| Whether TAC pleads violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act | Kevin claims school failed to accommodate his ADHD, retaliated for accommodation requests, and denied procedural review of discipline | Defendants argue the complaint lacks facts showing disability-motivated conduct, unreasonable refusal to modify, or causal link for retaliation | Dismissed — plaintiff did not plausibly allege disability-based discrimination, denial of reasonable modification, or retaliation |
| Whether Section 504 creates a private cause of action to enforce procedural special-education/regulatory safeguards | Kevin asserts denial of a hearing/process implicates § 504 remedies | Defendants contend § 504 does not create a private right to enforce regulatory procedural requirements | Court: declined to import procedural-regulatory claims into § 504 on these facts; no § 504 remedy shown |
| Whether the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissal of federal claims | Plaintiff seeks to proceed on state claims in federal court | Defendants rely on the usual rule favoring dismissal of supplemental claims when federal claims are dismissed early | Court dismissed state claims without prejudice and declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510 (7th Cir. 1990) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard and drawing inferences for plaintiff)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2011) (conclusory allegations insufficient post-Iqbal)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
- Jacobeit v. Rich Tp. High Sch. Dist. 227, 673 F. Supp. 2d 653 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (elements of § 1981 claim)
- Grzan v. Charter, 104 F.3d 116 (7th Cir. 1997) (elements of Rehabilitation Act claim)
- Washington v. Indiana High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 181 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 1999) (Rehabilitation Act/ADA analysis re: reasonable modification and but-for exclusion)
- Burks v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Transp., 464 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2006) (retaliation pleading elements)
- RWJ Mgmt. Co. v. BP Products N. Am., Inc., 672 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2012) (presumption to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims dismissed)
- Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 1999) (practice of dismissing supplemental state claims without prejudice when federal claims are dismissed)