### H o n o r a b l e R o b e rt

B . Ku g l e r , D i s tri c t

C o urt Ju d g e f o r th e D i s tri c t

o f N e wJ e r s e y, * 

### s i tt i ng by de s i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 1234 K. R. , A M i n o rByHe rP a r e n t s ; M I CH E L L E F . RI L E Y;

a n d CH AR L E S RI L E Y, A pp el l ants , v. SCH O O L D I STR I CT O F PH I LA D ELPH I A ; PA U L V A LLI S; L AWRE NC E T AYL OR ; J OS E P H B AHM; M I CH E L L E BY RU CH ; N I K K I SH A M E S; D A W N V I T E L L O M A N G A N ; and P E NNS YL VANI A M E NT OR / S CH OOL BA S E D- BE HAVI OR AL HE AL T H/

CO M M UNI T Y B E HAVI OR AL HE AL T H,

O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cv- 2388) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M i chae l M . B ay l s on S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a),

M ar ch 26 , 2010 B e f o re : R E N D E L L a n d F U E N T E S , C i r cui tJudges ; a n d KUG LE R, D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 12, 2010 )

### Th e Dis tric t Court had j uris diction p ursuant t o 2 8 U .S.C. § 13 31 . This Court has 1 

### juri s di c t i on pur s uant

t o 28 U. S. C. § 1291.

- 2-

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

F U E N T E S , C i r cui tJudge : A p p ell an ts, K . R . , M iche ll e F . R il ey , an d C h arles R il ey(co ll ec ti v ely , “P lai n ti ff s”), f iled a n a c tio n a g a in st m u lti p le D e f e n d a n ts a ss e rtin g c laim s u n d e r th e In d iv id u a ls w ith D i s abi l i t i es i n E ducat i on A ct( “I D E A ”) , T i t l e I I of the A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ct (“ A D A ” ), S e c tio n 5 0 4 o f th e R e h a b ilita tio n A c t ( “ R A ” ), 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , a n d s ta te la w . Af t e ra s e r i e s o f

p r e tr i a l ru l i n g s th a te l i mi n a t e d ma n yo f P l a i n t i f f s ’ c l a i ms , o n l yth e ADA a n d th e RA c l a i ms a g a i n s tth e S c h o o l Di s tr i c to f P h i l a d e l p h i a p r o c e e d e d t o tr i a l . On appea l , Pl ai nt i ffs chal l enge a num berof the rul i ngs m ade bythe D i s tr i ctC our tbefor e, d u ri n g , an d af

ter tri al, in p arti cu lar th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n s reg ard ing the ju ry c h a r g e a n d th e v e r d i c tf o r m. F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. 1 

### I. Be c aus e we wri t e pri m ari ly for the part i e s , we only

di s c us s the fa c t s and proceeding s t o the exte nt nece ss ar y fo r the re soluti onof

the c as e. K . R . h as b ee n d iagn o sed w ith A u ti sm S p ec tru m D isord er. I n M ay2 0 0 3 , b ef o re K . R . ent er ed ki nder gart en atSol i s - C ohen El ement arySchool , the School D i s tr i ctof

### - 3-

Phi l adel phi a ( “School D i s tr i ct ”) eval uat ed herand deve l oped an I ndi vi dual i zed Educat i on P l an (“I E P ”) purs uan tt o ID E A , 20 U . S . C . § 1 40 1 et s eq. T he ev al uati on did not di agn ose K . R . w i th aut i s m , butthe I E P pr ovi ded for“as neede d” as s i s t ance thr ough the School B as ed B ehavi or al H eal th ( “SB B H ”) pr ogr am atSol i s - C ohen. I n D ece m ber2003, hal fw ay thr ough K . R . ’ s fi r s ty earof ki nder gart en, herI E P w as r evi s ed t o i ncl ude i ndi vi dual i zed behavi or al ther apyfr om a Ther apeut i c St aff Suppor t( “TS S”) w or kerpr ovi ded by Penns y l vani a M E N T O R ( “Pa. M E N T O R ”) . T he fol l ow i ng s chool y ear , w hen K . R . w as i n fi r s tgr ade, the School D i s tr i ctel i m i nat ed heri ndi vi dual i zed be havi or al s uppor tand i ns t ead pr ovi ded as s i s t ance thr ough the SB B H pr ogr am, w hi ch w as al s o di r ect ed byPa. M E N T O R . R atherthan i ndi vi dual i zed be havi or al s uppor t , the SB B H pr ogr am i nvol ved a tre a tm e n t tea m th a t m o n ito re d stu d e n t b e h a v io r. In Ja n u a ry2 0 0 5 , K .R .’s p a re n ts w i thdr ew herfr om the SB B H pr ogr am. I n the nexttw o m onths , K . R . w as verbal l yand p h y sic a llya ss a u lted b yh e r c las sm a tes o n tw o o c c a sio n s. In M a rc h 2 0 0 5 , K .R .’s p a re n ts w i thdr ew herfr om s chool and bega n hom e s chool i ng. A tthe I D E A due pr oces s hear i ng, the H ear i ng O ffi cerconcl uded thatthe D i s tr i ct had pr ovi ded K . R . w i th a fr ee appr opr i at e publ i c educ at i on ( “FA PE ”) des pi t e the l ack of an i ndi vi dual i zed be havi or al ai de. T he A ppeal s Panel aff i r m ed. O n behal f of thei rdaught er , K . R . , M i chel l e F. R i l eyand C har l es R i l ey , ther eaf t er fi l ed an a ct i on i n fede r al courtagai ns tthe School D i s tr i ctof Phi l adel phi a and va r i ous otherdefe ndant s ( col l ect i vel y , “D efe ndant s ”) r eal l egi ng a fa i l ur e t o pr ovi de K . R . w i t h a

### - 4-

FA PE i n vi ol at i on of I D E A . T heyal s o br oughtcl ai m s underT i t l e I I of the A D A , 42 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 3 2 ; S e c tio n 5 0 4 o f th e R A , 2 9 U .S .C . § 7 9 4 ; 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 ; a n d s ta te la w . I n r es pons e t o D efe ndant s ’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the C om pl ai nt w ith p re ju d ice a s to P a . M E N T O R a n d its e m p lo y e e s, N ik k i S h a m e s a n d D a w n V itello M angan, forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o di s m i s s ed the s t at e l aw cl ai m s agai ns tthe School D i s tr i ctand the i ndi vi dual School D i s tr i ctdefe ndant s , Paul V al l as , L aw r ence T ay l or , J os eph B ahm, and M i chel l e B yruch. T her eaf t er , the r emai ni ng D efe ndant s fi l ed mot i ons fors um m aryj udgm entand a m ot i on forj udgm enton the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d as t o the I D E A cl ai m . H ol di ng that there w as n o co n tr aryn o n test im o n ial ex tr insic ev iden ce o n the re co rd, th e D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed the School D i s tr i ct ’ s m ot i on forj udgm enton the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d as t o the I D E A cl ai m . C oncl udi ng thatthe i ndi vi dual defe ndant s w er e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni ty , the D i s tr i ctC our tal s o gr ant ed D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entas to th e § 1 9 8 3 c laim . T h e A D A a n d R A c laim s a g a in st th e S c h o o l D istric t p ro c e e d e d to tr i al , and the j uryr eturned a ve r di cti n favorof the School D i s tr i ct . Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a n u m b e r o f

p o st-tria l m o tio n s, a ll o f w h ich w e re d e n ied b yth e D istric t C o u rt. 

### II. O nap p eal, P laintif

f s ch allen g e th e f

o llo w in g ru lin g s b y

th e D istrict C o urt: ( 1) t he fai l ur e t o i ncl ude a “ r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on” i ns truct i on i n the j urychar ge; ( 2) the phr as i ng of the ver di cts heet ; and ( 3) the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s comm ent s and rul i ngs attr i al

### P laintif f s also co nten dth at th e Di s tr i c tCo u r te rr e d i n d i s mi s s i n g P a . M E NT OR 2 and i t s empl oy ees , i n gr ant i ng the School D i s tr i ct ’ s m ot i on forj udgm enton the a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd a s to th e ID E A c laim , an d in e x c lu d in g f ro m e v id e n c e d a ily pr ogr es s not es m ade bySB B H w or ker s w ho m oni t or ed K . R . ’ s behavi orand the w r i t t en re p o rt o f a n e u ro p sy c h o lo g ica l ev a lu a tio n o f K .R . T h e se a rg u m e n ts a re w ith o u t m e rit, and w e w i l l aff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof the mot i on t o di s m i s s , the gr antof the m o ti o n fo r j u d g m en t on the a d m inistrati v e re co rd, an d the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ev iden ti ary rul i ng s.



### - 5- re g a rd in g th e u s e o f

th e te rm “ o n e -o n -o n e .” 2 Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o char ge the j uryon the is s u e o f “ re a s o n a b le a c c o m m o d a tio n ” u n d e r T itle II o f th e A D A a n d § 5 0 4 o f

th e R A .

“ G e n e ra lly , w e re v iew ju ryin stru c tio n s f o r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n . H o w e v e r, o u r re v iew is pl enaryw hen the i s s ue i s w hetherthe i ns truct i ons m i s s t at ed the l aw . W e mustcons i der w hetherthe cha r ge, t aken a s a w hol e, pr oper l yappr i s e[d] the j uryof the i s s ues and the appl i cabl e l aw . ” A r m s tr ong v. B ur det t e Tom l i n Mem ’ lH os p. , 438 F. 3d 240, 245–46 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks & ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “[W ] e have r ecogni zed that § 504 r equi r es s om e af

fi r m at i ve s t eps t o acc om m odat e handi cappe d per s ons . ” Juve l is by Juve l is v. Sni der , 68 F. 3d 648, 653 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A l though the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notus e the pr eci s e t erm “r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on, ” the cha r ge, “tak en as a w h o le, ” a p p ri sed the ju ryo f th is i ssu e. In p arti cu lar, the D istri ct C o u rt ex p lai n ed that the P lai n ti ff s “c o n tend [e d ] th at th e S ch o o l D istri ct sh o u ld h av e tak en m o re ordi ffe r entm eas ur es t o pr ot ectK . R . fr om the al l eged s tudent - on- s tudenthar as s m ent . ” (A p p . at 9 8 9 .) T h e p h ra se “ tak [ in g ] m o re o r d if f e re n t m e a su re s” e x p lain s th e “ re a so n a b le

### - 6-

a c c o m m o d a tio n ” c o n c e p t in p lain E n g lish . T h u s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id noterri n decl i ni ng t o i ncl ude the t erm “r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on” i n the j urychar ge.

“ W e re v ie w a C o u rt ’s f o rm u la tio n o f

ju ry in te rr o g a to ri e s f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . ‘T h e o n lylim itatio n [ o n th is d isc re tio n ] is th a t th e q u e stio n s a sk e d o f th e ju ryb e a d e q u a te t o det erm i ne the fa ctual i s s ues es s ent i al t o the j udgm ent . ’ ” A r m s tr ong , 438 F. 3d at246 ( quot i ng A r m s tr ong v. D w yer , 155 F. 3d 211, 216 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ) ( fur therci t at i on om i t t ed) . Pl ai nt i ffs pr opos ed the fol l ow i ng ques t i on forthe ver di cts heet : “H ave Pl ai nt i ffs . . . pr oven bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe School D i s tr i ctof Phi l adel phi a vi ol at ed [K . R . ’ s ] r i ght s underthe [RA ] orthe [A D A ] bydi s cr i m i nat i ng agai ns therorot herw i s e exc l udi ng herfr om part i ci pat i on i n ordeni ed herthe bene fi t s of the s ervi ces , educa t i on pr ogr ams, oract i vi t i es of the D i s tr i ct ?” ( A pp. at662. ) T he ver di cts heets ubm i t t ed t o t he j urycont ai ned the fol l ow i ng i nt err ogat ory : “D i d the School D i s tr i ctof Phi l adel phi a di s cr i m i nat e aga i ns tK . R . byr eas on of herdi s abi l i ty ?” (I d. at 17 . ) Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thatthi s phr as i ng m i s l ed the j ury , l eavi ng the i m pr es s i on thatthe j uryw as r e q u i r e d t o f

i n d th a tth e S c h o o l Di s tr i c ti n t e n t i o n a l l yd i s c r i mi n a t e d a g a i n s tK. R. T he i s s ue r ai s ed byPl ai nt i ffs ’ pr opos ed form ul at i on w as addr es s ed bythe D i s tr i ct C our ti n the fol l ow i ng j urychar ge:

T he four th el ement , w hetherK . R . w as deni ed the bene fi t s of ors ubj ect to d is c ri m in a tio n s o le ly b yre a s o n o f h e r d is a b ility is a t is s u e . . . . [ T ]h e p h ra se “ d e n ied th e b e n e f its o f ” m e a n s tha t th e p ro g ra m o r a c tiv ity w hi ch r ece i ves Federal financ i al as s i s t ance m aynotdi r ect l yorthr ough contr actual l i cens i ng orotherarr angement s , on the basi s of a handi cap, deny a q u a lifie d , h a n d ica p p e d p e rso n th e o p p o rtu n ityto p a rticip a te in o r b e n e f it

### - 7-

fr om the ai d, benef

i t , ors ervi ce. Th e Ri l e y s mu s tp r o v e b ya p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e th a tK. R. w a s e x c lu d e d f

ro m p a rticip a tio n in , d e n ied th e b e n e f its o f , o r su b jec ted to d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n a s c h o o l p r o g r a m b y r e a s o n o f h e rd i s a b i l i ty. (A p p . at 9 8 8 .) A s th e D istric t C o u rt g a v e th is c h a rg e , w h ich th o ro u g h lya n d a c c u ra tely exp l ai ned the ap pli cable l aw , i tdid not abuse i t s di scr et i on i n d ecl i ning t o u se Plai nti ffs’ p ro p o s e d ju ry in te rr o g a to ry. S e e P o ten c e v . H a zle to n A re a Sc h . D ist. , 357 F. 3d 366, 372 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). P lai n ti ff s ch all en g e the D istri ct C o u rt ’s co n clus ion s an d instruction s to the jury re g a rd in g th e u se o f

th e ter m “ o n e -o n -o n e .” T h e p h ra se “ o n e -o n -o n e ” w a s u se d b yb o th th e p a rties a n d th e D istric t C o u rt to d e sc rib e th e b e h a v io ra l th e ra p yth a t K .R . rec e iv e d in k in d e rg a rte n f

ro m h e r T S S w o rk e r. A t trial, h o w e v e r, th e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t, bas ed on the evi dence , the phr as e “one - on- one” w as a t erm of artus ed bythe School D i s tr i cts ol el yt o des cr i be a f or m of educat i onals uppor t , nota form of behavi or al s uppor t . A s s uch, the D i s tr i ctC our tl i m i t ed ques t i oni ng r egar di ng the pr ovi s i on of “one o n -o n e ” su p p o rt. T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t th e d e c isio n n o t to pr ovi de educ at i onal one- on- one s uppor tw as notbefor e them and t hattheys houl d i ns t ead cons i derthe s oci al and beha vi or al as pect s of K . R . ’ s s chool i ng. ( A pp. at990. ) T he D i s tr i ctC our tcl ar i fi ed that“the educ at i onal , the ac ademi c partof . . . [K . R . ’ s ] educa t i on i s notbefor e y ou. . . . W hati s i n fr ontof y ou ar e the otheras pect s of the s chool pr ogr am and w hetherthe pl ai nt i ffs have pr oven di s cr i m i nat i on [w i th r es pectt o] thos e as pect s of the pr ogr am. ” (I

d. a t 1 0 0 6 .)

### - 8-

Be f o r e tr i a l , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tru l e d th a tth e S c h o o l Di s tr i c th a d p r o v i d e d K. R. w ith a F A P E a s re q u ir e d b yID E A ; a c c o rd in g ly, th is is s u e w a s n o t in f ro n t o f th e ju ry. T he pr ovi s i on of a FA PE i s al s o a conc eptunderthe R A . O urpr ece dentm akes cl eart hat a F A P E u n d e r I D E A a ls o q u a lif ie s a s a F A P E u n d e r t h e R A . See, e. g. , Jer emy H . by H u n terv . Mo u n t L e b a n o n Sc h . D ist. , 9 5 F .3 d 2 7 2 , 2 7 8

– 7 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); see al so Mi l l er ex rel . S. M. v. B d. of Ed uc. of Albuqu erque P ub . Sch s. , 5 6 5 F . 3 d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 4 6 (10 th C ir . 2009) ( “[C]ompl y i ng w i th t he I D E A i s s uffi ci entt o di s pr ove educ at i onal di s cr i m i nat i on . . . . ”) . T hus , the ques t i on of the pr ovi s i on of a FA PE underthe R A w as lik e w ise n o t b e f

o re th e ju ry . In ste a d , as th e D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyin stru c ted , the o n ly issue fo r th e juryw as w h ethe r th e e v iden ce reg ard ing the b eh av ioral an d so cial sup p o rt s ervi ces demonstr at ed thatthe School D i s tr i cthad di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tK . R . i n vi ol at i on of the A D A orthe R A . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s comm ent s , rul i ngs , and instruction s reg ard ing the u se o f th e term “o n e-o n -on e” w ere p rop er. III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e af fi r m al l of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der s and rul i ngs c h a llen g e d o n a p p e a l.