81 F.4th 440
5th Cir.2023Background
- In November 2016, 17-year-old special-needs student Jevon Washington (diagnosed with an intellectual disability and emotional disturbance) became agitated at Mayde Creek High School after an in-class altercation and attempts to access a designated "chill out" room; he tried to leave the campus and a struggle ensued at the exit.
- School resource officer Elvin Paley and other staff intervened; Paley threatened to tase Jevon and then fired his taser as Jevon exited, using a "drive stun" technique for about 15 seconds and continuing after Jevon fell and ceased struggling.
- As a result Jevon soiled himself, suffered emotional trauma (including PTSD), and his mother kept him home for months.
- Plaintiffs filed an IDEA administrative petition (the hearing officer dismissed non-IDEA claims), then sued in federal court under Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment theories).
- The district court granted summary judgment to KISD and Paley on ADA/§504 and Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claims (but denied summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim); on appeal the Fifth Circuit considered whether IDEA exhaustion applied and whether defendants were entitled to judgment on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA/§504 claims were subject to IDEA exhaustion | Washington: claims for damages (compensatory/punitive) are not subject to IDEA exhaustion because IDEA cannot provide those remedies | Defendants: ADA/§504 claims overlap with IDEA and thus must exhaust IDEA administrative procedures before suit | Court: Perez controls — IDEA exhaustion only applies to claims seeking relief also available under IDEA; because plaintiffs sought damages (not available under IDEA), exhaustion was not required |
| Whether KISD is liable under ADA/§504 (intentional discrimination) | Washington: Paley’s conduct (statements and tasing to keep Jevon inside) reflects discrimination by reason of disability | KISD/Paley: conduct was motivated by safety/legitimate need to maintain control; no evidence of animus or knowledge of specific limitations/needed accommodations | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for KISD — plaintiffs failed to show the requisite intentional discrimination (more than deliberate indifference) or notice of specific limitations/necessary accommodations |
| Whether Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim (excessive corporal punishment) survives Fee precedent | Washington: tasing was not "corporal punishment" aimed at discipline, so Fee should not bar the claim | Paley: force was used to assert control/restraint for legitimate school interests; Fee precludes a substantive due process remedy where adequate post‑punishment remedies exist | Court: Fee governs — the tasing was deployed to restrain/control in a disciplinary/pedagogical context; Texas provides post‑deprivation remedies, so the substantive due process claim is barred; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Sturgis Pub. Schs., 598 U.S. 142 (2023) (IDEA exhaustion applies only to claims seeking relief also available under IDEA)
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 580 U.S. 154 (2017) (framework for identifying when non‑IDEA claims are subject to IDEA exhaustion)
- Fee v. Herndon, 900 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1990) (substantive due process claims for excessive corporal punishment are precluded when adequate state post‑punishment remedies exist)
- Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) (definition and scope of "corporal punishment" under the Constitution)
- T.O. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 2 F.4th 407 (5th Cir. 2021) (applying Fee to discipline‑context uses of force; distinguishing random/ malicious attacks)
- Delano‑Pyle v. Victoria Cnty., 302 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2002) (equating ADA and § 504 liability standards)
- McMillen v. New Caney Indep. Sch. Dist., 939 F.3d 640 (5th Cir. 2019) (pre‑Perez application of IDEA exhaustion to overlapping remedies)
- Cadena v. El Paso Cnty., 946 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2020) (intentional discrimination under ADA/§504 requires more than deliberate indifference)