Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01584/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01584-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Independent School District No. 721
Appellee
M.P.
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1584

___________

M.P., by and through his parents and *

natural guardians, K. and D.P., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal From the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Independent School District No. 721, *

New Prague, Minnesota, *

*

 Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 16, 2005

Filed: March 8, 2006 

___________

Before SMITH, HEANEY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

M.P., by and through his parents, initiated this action against his former school

district, Independent School District No. 721 (School District), alleging in relevant

part claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-

1487 (2000) (IDEA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796

Appellate Case: 05-1584 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018305
1

The nature of the harassment that M.P. suffered is more thoroughly discussed

in our prior opinion, M.P. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 721, 326 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2003).

-2-

(2000). M.P.’s claims arose after the School District’s school nurse disclosed that he

is schizophrenic, prompting other students to verbally and physically harass him.1

On May 14, 2002, the district court granted the School District’s motion for

summary judgment on all claims. The court dismissed the IDEA claim because M.P.

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by enrolling in a school district outside

the School District prior to initiating his administrative proceedings. The court

dismissed the Rehabilitation Act claim because M.P. failed to present any evidence

of deliberate indifference. M.P. appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. On

April 16, 2003, this court affirmed the district court’s order with respect to the IDEA

claim, see M.P. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 721, 326 F.3d 975, 980-83 (8th Cir. 2003),

and remanded the case with respect to the Rehabilitation Act claim to determine

whether the School District had “acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment when

it failed to take appropriate action to protect M.P.’s academic and safety interests after

the disclosure.” Implicit in this court’s holding and remand was that M.P. could

pursue a Section 504 claim independent of his IDEA claims without exhausting his

administrative remedies. 

The School District filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over M.P.’s

remaining Rehabilitation Act claim. In the alternative, the School District filed a

motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Rather

than conduct an inquiry into M.P.’s claim as this court had ordered, the district court

granted the School District’s motion to dismiss because M.P. failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies, once again prolonging what we believe is M.P.’s entitlement

to present his Section 504 claims before the court. 

Appellate Case: 05-1584 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018305
-3-

M.P. appeals, arguing that he was not required to exhaust administrative

remedies for disability discrimination and harassment claims arising under the

Rehabilitation Act, and that state administrative IDEA hearings do not provide

students with relief or damages for disability discrimination and harassment claims.

Because the district court dismissed the matter with prejudice pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), this court’s standard of review is de novo.

Duncan v. Dep’t of Labor, 313 F.3d 445, 446 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). M.P.

asserts that he can sue for damages under the Rehabilitation Act for violation of his

Section 504 rights without exhausting administrative remedies. We hold that he has

a right of action for damages under Section 504 and reverse the district court.

Section 504 is a proscriptive, anti-discrimination statute that prohibits

discrimination on the part of governmental actors to avoid due process and equal

protection violations. To establish a prime facie case of disability discrimination

under Section 504, the plaintiff must prove: “(1) [he] is a qualified individual with

a disability; (2) [he] was denied the benefits of a program or activity of a public entity

receiving federal funds; and (3) [he] was discriminated against based on [his]

disability.” Timothy H. v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 178 F.3d 968, 971 (8th Cir.

1999). The plaintiff must also show bad faith or gross misjudgment to make a

successful Section 504 violation claim. Monahan v. Nebraska, 687 F.2d 1164, 1171

(8th Cir. 1982). Examples of successful Section 504 claims include a blanket districtwide policy that shortened the school day for autistic children, Christopher S. v.

Stanislaus County Office of Educ., 384 F.3d 1205, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2004); a school

district’s refusal to place a student with fibromyalgia in an honors class or permit her

to obtain school credit by way of home instruction, Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d

138, 148 (2nd Cir. 2002); and a request for monetary damages for physical abuse and

injury that a special education student suffered while at school, Witte v. Clark County

Sch. Dist., 197 F.3d 1271,1276 (9th Cir. 1999).

Appellate Case: 05-1584 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018305
-4-

Our precedent indicates that even when a plaintiff’s IDEA claim fails for lack

of jurisdiction, a Section 504 claim may still be considered. In Thompson v. Bd. of

the Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 144 F.3d 574, 576 (8th Cir. 1998), a student with various

learning disabilities and emotional behavioral disturbance (EBD) transferred to a

charter school outside of his school district once his parent determined that he was not

receiving adequate services there. We held that the student failed to state a cause of

action under the IDEA “because his request for a review [came] after he left the

District previously responsible for his education.” Id. at 578. Although the student

had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the IDEA, we considered his

Section 504 claims, which included improper diagnosis of his behavioral issues and

the district’s failure to alter its discipline policies to accommodate the student’s needs,

separately from his IDEA claims. Id. at 580. We held that it was unlikely that the

student had presented sufficient evidence to show that the District acted with bad faith

or gross misjudgment, and rejected his claims. Id. 

In the case before us, M.P. argues that the School District acted in bad faith or

with gross misjudgment because once his medical condition was disclosed, the School

District failed to provide him with accommodations in the educational environment;

failed to investigate allegations of disability discrimination, student-against-student

harassment, hostile education environment, and disclosure of personal information;

and failed to take appropriate and effective remedial measures once notice of his

harassment was provided to school authorities. The School District’s alleged failure

to protect M.P. from unlawful discrimination on the basis of his disability is a claim

that is wholly unrelated to the IEP process, which involves individual identification,

evaluation, educational placement, and free, appropriate education (FAPE) decisions.

We therefore hold that M.P. has a right of action for damages under Section 504. 

For the reasons cited above, we reverse the district court and remand for

proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the court is to consider whether

the School District acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment when it failed to take

Appellate Case: 05-1584 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018305
-5-

appropriate action to protect M.P.’s academic and safety interests after his disability

was disclosed to the student body.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1584 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/08/2006 Entry ID: 2018305