Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03841/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03841-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Idil Abdull
Appellant
Lovaas Institute for Early Intervention Midwest
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3841

___________________________

Idil Abdull,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Lovaas Institute for Early Intervention Midwest,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: October 19, 2015

 Filed: April 6, 2016

____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Idil Abdull brought this action against the Lovaas Institute for Early

Intervention Midwest and several of its employees, alleging unlawful discrimination

based on race and national origin under federal and Minnesota law. The district

Appellate Case: 14-3841 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Entry ID: 4385634 
court granted summary judgment in favor of the Institute and the employees on all 1

claims. We agree that there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial, and we

therefore affirm.

I.

A.

The Institute providesIntensive Early InterventionBehavior Therapy to young

children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The Institute designs an individualized

treatment plan for each child, and a clinical supervisor leads a team of behavior

therapists that administers approximately forty hours of therapy and parent-training

sessions in the child’s home each week. From 2009 to 2011, the Institute treated

forty-five to fifty children, two or three of whom were African American. Subject to

staff availability, the Institute will admit any child, but it specializes in work with

young children. The Institute treats children for six-month periods; at the end of each

period, the Institute decides whether to provide another six months of treatment.

Before deciding whether to accept a child into its program, and at six-month

intervals thereafter, the Institute requires parents to read and sign an informedconsent form. The form notifies parentsthat treatment hours will vary during the sixmonth treatment period and that staff members will change regularly. Parents may

request replacement staff, but they are advised that a replacement is not guaranteed. 

After the parents sign the form and the Institute decides to provide treatment, the

Institute submits a recommendation for treatment to the Minnesota Department of

Human Services. If the Department determinesthat treatment is medically necessary,

it will approve the recommendation and agree to fund the child’s treatment with the

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota.

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3841 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Entry ID: 4385634 
Institute for the six-month period. Otherwise, the family must find an alternative

source of funding for the treatment.

The informed-consent form also explains the process for progress reviews. At

the end of each six-month treatment period, the Institute reviews the child’s progress

and determines whether further treatment would be beneficial. If the Institute and the

child’s family believe that treatment should continue, the Institute submits another

recommendation for treatment to the Department. The Institute, however, reserves

the right to discharge a child at the end of a six-month period. 

From 2009 to 2011, the Institute discharged approximately twelve children

from its program each year. The primary factor that guides the Institute’s decision

to discharge a child is the child’s progress. The Institute may discharge a child for

other reasons, including uncooperative parents or insufficient staff. If a child has

failed to make adequate progress for two consecutive six-month treatment periods,

then the Institute may recommend a transitional-treatment plan designed to assist the

child’s integration into alternative-treatment services.

B.

Idil Abdull is Somali American. In May 2007, her son, whom we will identify

by his initials as “AA,” was diagnosed with a nonverbal Autism Spectrum Disorder. 

The Institute treated AA from May 2008 through February 2010. When the Institute

accepted AA into its program, AA was almost six years old and only the second child

of Somali descent ever admitted.

During AA’s first six-month progress review in December 2008, Dr. Eric

Larsson, the Institute’s executive director of clinicalservices, and Karin Morris, AA’s

clinical supervisor, discussed AA’s progress and their recommendation with Abdull. 

Given AA’s limited progress, they believed that the best course of action was for the

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-3841 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Entry ID: 4385634 
Institute to provide another six months of treatment, and then, if AA’s progress

remained the same or regressed, for the Institute to provide six months of transitional

treatment. Abdull disagreed with their assessment and thought the Institute was

ignoring its policies by giving up on AA after only six months of treatment. Dr.

Larsson and Morris explained that the Institute would continue to provide treatment

to AA for another six-month period.

In February 2009, Abdull requested a new clinical supervisor and senior

behavior therapist for AA. Dr. Larsson informed Abdull that the Institute did not

have an available staff member to assume the clinicalsupervisor position and that the

Institute would have to discharge AA if Abdull insisted on obtaining a new

supervisor. Abdull then contacted Scott Wright, the Institute’s owner, and asked that

the Institute continue treating AA. Although Wright did not participate in the day-today operations of the Institute, Wright allegedly stated that AA was too old for the

therapy program and that children AA’s age typically went to school. Soon after

Abdull asked for staff changes, one of the Institute’s clinical directors volunteered to

act as AA’s clinical supervisor. The Institute thus decided to retain AA in the

program and assigned Courtney Whitcraft to replace AA’s senior behavior therapist. 

Abdull later requested that Whitcraft be replaced, and the Institute granted the

request.

During the spring of 2009, Abdull contacted state agencies concerning the

Institute’s treatment of her and AA. She ultimately filed several complaints, alleging

that the Institute was discriminating against her and AA based on their race and

national origin. Each agency determined that no action against the Institute was

necessary or that no probable cause existed to support a finding that the Institute had

discriminated against Abdull and AA.

By AA’s second six-month review in June 2009, his progress had not

improved. The Institute still did not discharge AA but approved another six months

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-3841 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Entry ID: 4385634 
of treatment to focus on transitional objectives. At AA’s third six-month review, in

December 2009, AA’s progress remained stagnant. The Institute informed Abdull

that it would approve another six months of treatment for AA, but this period would

be the last. The Institute also told Abdull that she could transfer AA out of the

program before completion of the last six-month period if she preferred. In February

2010, Abdull removed AA from the Institute’s therapy program.

In August 2013, after exhausting administrative remedies in Minnesota, 

Abdull sued the Institute and several of its employees, alleging that the Institute had

discriminated against her and AA in violation of federal and state civil rights laws,

and that the employees had aided and abetted a violation of state law. The district

court granted the Institute’s motion for summary judgment, reasoning that Abdull had

failed to establish a submissible case that the Institute discriminated against her or

AA on account of their race or national origin. We review the district court’s grant

of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable

inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 

Hervey v. Cty. of Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711, 719 (8th Cir. 2008). 

II.

Federal law forbids discrimination “on the ground of race . . . or national

origin” in any program or activity, including the Institute’s, that receives federal

financial assistance. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA)

also prohibits denying any person “full and equal enjoyment” of services of a place

of public accommodation “because of race . . . [or] national origin.” Minn. Stat. Ann.

§ 363A.11, subd. 1(a)(1). Abdull brought claims under both statutes and sought

damages. Abdull also alleged a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, which prohibits

discrimination in places of public accommodation, but that statute authorizes only

prospective relief, not money damages. Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390

-5-

Appellate Case: 14-3841 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Entry ID: 4385634 
U.S. 400, 402 (1968) (per curiam). Because Adbull sought only damages, the district

court properly dismissed her claim under § 2000a. 

The district court applied the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), to the claims under § 2000d and the

MHRA. Because the district court fully developed the record on the motion for

summary judgment, we need consider on appeal only whether there is a genuine issue

of material fact for trial on the ultimate question of discrimination vel non. See U.S.

Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-15 (1983); Riser v. Target

Corp., 458 F.3d 817, 820-21 (8th Cir. 2006); Johnson v. Ready Mixed Concrete Co.,

424 F.3d 806, 810 (8th Cir. 2005). We will assume for the sake of analysis that the

Institute is a place of public accommodation for purposes of the Minnesota statute. 

The federal statute, § 2000d, forbids discrimination “on the ground of” race or

national origin. The phrase “on the ground of” issynonymous with “because of,” see

Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language 640 (College ed. 1968),

and the statute thusrequires a plaintiff to show that a forbidden reason wasthe but-for

cause of a denial of benefits. See Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct.

2517, 2528, 2533 (2013); Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 180 (2009). 

In cases arising under Chapter 363 of the MHRA, however, the Minnesota Supreme

Court has ruled that a plaintiff must demonstrate that a prohibited reason “more likely

than not motivated” the defendant in taking an adverse action. See Anderson v.

Hunter, Keith, Marshall &Co., 417 N.W.2d 619, 627 (Minn. 1988); see also LaPoint

v. Family Orthodontics, P.A., 872 N.W.2d 889, 892-93 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). Under

this approach, a plaintiff can prevail “even if a[] [defendant] has a legitimate reason”

for the disparate treatment. LaPoint, 872 N.W.2d at 892-93 (quoting McGrath v. TCF

Bank Sav., fsb, 509 N.W.2d 365, 366 (Minn. 1993)). Although the parties cite no

case addressing § 363A.11, subd. 1, we think it likely that the Minnesota court would

take the same approach with this provision that the court applies in other sections of

the MHRA with comparable text.

-6-

Appellate Case: 14-3841 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Entry ID: 4385634 
As the standards under the state and federal statutes appear to differ, we

consider first whether Abdull has established a genuine issue for trial under the more

generous Minnesota standard. Because we conclude that her MHRA claim fails

under that standard, it follows that the federal claim under § 2000d was properly

dismissed as well.

Abdull argues first that her claims are supported by the fact that she and AA

were similarly situated to Caucasian parents and children who were treated more

favorably in the Institute’s program. Abdull posits that three Caucasian, nonverbal

autistic children were similarly situated to AA. But the main factor underlying the

Institute’s treatment decisions is the individual child’s progress, and Abdull’s

evidence does not address the rate of progress for the three comparators. Without

evidence showing that the Caucasian children were similarly situated to AA in all

material respects, Abdull cannot rely on comparisons in treatment to establish

unlawful discrimination. See Bennett v. Nucor Corp., 656 F.3d 802, 819 (8th Cir.

2011).

Aside from the comparators, Abdull contends that other evidence shows that

race or national origin motivated the Institute to deny her benefits of its program. She

complains that the Institute (1) replaced AA’s staff members more frequently than it

did for other children, (2) provided fewer treatment hours for AA than for other

children, (3) used different treatment programming, technology, or methods with AA

than for other children, (4) violated its own policies when it recommended

discharging AA after his first six months in its therapy program, and (5) refused to

consider the recommendation of AA’s independent psychologist. We agree with the

district court that there is insufficient evidence to show that any unfavorable

treatment was motivated by race or national origin.

Although AA endured several staff changes, the evidence does not support a

finding of discriminatory motive. From May to October 2008, three employees

-7-

Appellate Case: 14-3841 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Entry ID: 4385634 
served as AA’s clinical supervisor. The first left the Institute for another job, and the

second was assigned only as a temporary replacement. Three more staff changes

occurred after October 2008 as a result of Abdull’s requests. Abdull protests that the

second supervisor falsely said that she was reassigned because she did not work with

children as old as AA, but Abdull does not dispute that thissupervisor was designated

as temporary from the outset, and she offers no admissible evidence that the Institute

reassigned the supervisor to work with older children. 

AA’s treatment hours do not support Abdull’s claim. During AA’s time with

the Institute, he received an average of forty-eight hours of treatment per week. From

June to December 2009, AA’s last six-month treatment period with the Institute, AA

averaged forty-six hours of treatment per week. These amounts were well within the

range of treatment hours that other children received at the Institute. Some of the

fluctuations about which Abdull complains, moreover, were caused by Abdull’s

decision to prohibit trainees from working with AA or by conflicts with AA’s

schooling schedule. Abdull presents no evidence to support a finding that race or

national origin was a motivating factor behind the Institute’s decisions about AA’s

treatment time.

Abdull’s complaints that the Institute used different treatment programming,

technology, or methods with AA do not support a finding of discriminatory motive. 

While the Institute did not train AA to use eating utensils, the Institute was

responding to Abdull’s request to use a different approach for cultural reasons. The

Institute varied the lessons and the amount of time it devoted to teaching each lesson

based on AA’s individual needs. Abdull assertsthat the Institute withheld technology

from AA’s treatment, but she fails to demonstrate that the Institute used either Apple

iPad technology or video recordings of therapy sessions during AA’s time in the

program. There is no evidence that the Institute declined to employ the technology

with AA for reasons of race or national origin. 

-8-

Appellate Case: 14-3841 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Entry ID: 4385634 
The evidence does not support a finding that the Institute’s handling of

Abdull’s recommended discharge was a denial of benefits motivated by race or

national origin. The Institute followed its policies and did not recommend AA’s

discharge until February 2009 when it was unable to accommodate Abdull’s demand

for another new clinical supervisor. Even then, the Institute eventually located

another clinical supervisor, and AA remained in the program. The alleged statement

of the Institute’s owner concerning AA’s age is therefore immaterial, because the

February 2009 recommendation did not deny AA the full and equal enjoyment of

services and benefits under the program.

The record belies Abdull’s claimthat the Institute ignored the recommendation

of AA’s independent psychologist when it decided to recommend his discharge. In

May 2009, the Institute received a letter authored by AA’s independent psychologist

recommending continued treatment for AA. The February 2009 discharge

recommendation therefore pre-dated the psychologist’s input, and the Institute’s

actions after May 2009 conformed to the psychologist’s recommendation. The

Institute twice elected to provide another six months of treatment for AA after May

2009, and it continued to treat AA until Abdull withdrew him in February 2010.

Abdull also argues that the Institute treated her less favorably than it did other

parents. The Institute did adopt special procedures for Abdull involving an

individualized communication plan and an absentee system for missed treatment

sessions. But these procedures were triggered by Abdull’s absences and disruptions

of therapy sessions, as evidenced by her failure to meet the Institute’s benchmark for

maintaining professional boundaries with Institute employees. Abdull’s evidence

concerning her performance at parent-training sessions does not contradict the

Institute’s rationale for imposing these procedures. The Institute, moreover,

responded in a similar fashion when fourteen other families, a majority of whomwere

of European descent, frequently disrupted or missed therapy sessions.

-9-

Appellate Case: 14-3841 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Entry ID: 4385634 
For these reasons, the district court properly granted summary judgment in

favor of the Institute on Abdull’s civil rights claims. Because the Institute did not

violate the MHRA, the district court also correctly dismissed Abdull’s tag-along

claims that Institute employees aided and abetted a violation of the MHRA. See

Minn. Stat. Ann. § 363A.14; McDonald v. City of Saint Paul, 679 F.3d 698, 708 (8th

Cir. 2012).

* * *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Abdull’s motion to strike

affidavits is dismissed as moot, because the disputed evidence is unnecessary to a

decision. See Stewart v. Prof’l Comput. Ctrs., Inc., 148 F.3d 937, 940 n.3 (8th Cir.

1998).

______________________________

-10-

Appellate Case: 14-3841 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/06/2016 Entry ID: 4385634