829 F. Supp. 2d 649
N.D. Ill.2011Background
- Zachary M. was a student at Evanston Township High School from 2006 to 2010 with ADHD diagnosed in 2007; ETHS denied a formal §504 plan in 2007 but provided informal accommodations.
- A PPS review in November 2007 concluded Zach was not eligible for §504 because disability did not substantially limit learning and his grades were above average.
- After additional documentation in February–March 2008, the PPS again found Zach ineligible for §504 but ETHS offered informal accommodations and later formal accommodations following a §504 hearing denial in November 2008.
- A §504 appeal hearing in November 2008 upheld the denial; accommodations continued through 2009, and Zach’s GPA and test scores remained strong (GPA ~3.7–4.13; ACT 34).
- Zach and his parents filed suit February 9, 2009; ETHS agreed to provide a §504 plan in October 2009 as part of a settlement, while continuing to dispute liability; the court granted summary judgment for ETHS on all counts.
- Key issues include the scope of relief (damages only for Counts I–II, mootness, and grade recalculation), and whether §1983 claims survive given no evidence of a policy or custom.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zach is a 'qualified individual with a disability' under ADA/RA after the ADA Amendments Act changes | Zach is disabled under the amended standard. | Zach does not meet the disability definition under the amended Act. | Assessed but not decided; court assumed disability issue for summary judgment purposes. |
| Whether Counts I–II are moot or capable of redress through the court | Requests include §504 eligibility, accommodations, and grade recalculation; remedies may be available. | Some relief moot; grade recalculation not proper relief; no live claims for §504 without ongoing status. | Not moot; damages remain viable; grade recalculation not appropriate relief; some requested remedies deemed moot. |
| Whether grade recalculation is an appropriate form of relief | Court should recalculate grades to reflect accommodations due to disability. | Judicially revising grades intrudes into academic judgments and is inappropriate. | Not appropriate relief; court declines to order grade recalculation. |
| Whether §1983 claim against ETHS survives given the ADA/RA framework | §1983 provides a vehicle for unconstitutional discrimination claims. | ADA/RA provide comprehensive enforcement; §1983 not available here absent policy or custom. | Summary judgment granted on Count III; no evidence of an ETHS policy or custom to support §1983 claim. |
| Whether the retaliation theory supports relief | Retaliation occurred due to a prior family lawsuit against ETHS. | Timing alone is insufficient to show retaliation; no demonstrable causal link. | Summary judgment granted on implied retaliation claim; insufficient evidence of causal retaliation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cornucopia Institute v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 560 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2009) (mootness when relief would be unavailable or ineffective)
- Board of Educ. v. Nathan R., 199 F.3d 377 (7th Cir. 2000) (mootness; graduated student special education rights can be moot)
- Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1983) (official policy or custom required for §1983 liability)
- Turner v. The Saloon, Ltd., 595 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2010) (suspicious timing insufficient for retaliation liability)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; de novo review of evidence)
- Sow v. Fortville Police Dep't, 636 F.3d 293 (7th Cir. 2011) (Monell-like standard for policy or custom; but not satisfied here)