Source: https://www.ada.gov/milwaukee_montessori/milwaukee_montessori_complaint.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:55:22+00:00

Document:
This action is brought by the United States to enforce Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, as amended, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, against Defendant Milwaukee Montessori School (“Defendant” or “the School”). Defendant has violated the ADA by: 1) failing to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures for a child, M.K., who has a neuromuscular and musculoskeletal disability; 2) disenrolling M.K. from the School due to his disability; and 3) excluding or otherwise denying equal goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, or other opportunities to M.K.’s parents because of the known disability of M.K.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(1)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. The Court may grant declaratory relief and further necessary or proper relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and may grant equitable relief, monetary damages, and a civil penalty pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188(b)(2).
Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Defendant resides in this district. Venue is further proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.
Defendant is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business at 345 North 95th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226. Defendant is an independent, private, co-educational Montessori day school, serving children from 18 months old through eighth grade. Defendant bills itself as “one of the oldest and largest independent Montessori schools in the United States,” with an enrollment of over 400 children.
M.K. was born with a genetic condition affecting his neurological and musculoskeletal systems. The manifestations of M.K.’s condition include low muscle tone throughout his body, with exaggerated muscle weakness on his right side, and difficulty with balance. The general muscle weakness that M.K. experiences has led to delays throughout his life in acquiring gross motor skills and achieving physical milestones. At all times relevant to this action, M.K. experienced substantial limitations in major life activities including walking and the operation of major bodily functions including neurological and musculoskeletal functions. Specifically, M.K.’s muscle weakness led him to fall more frequently than children his age who do not have physical limitations. M.K. is an individual with a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102.
In March 2011, M.K.’s parents completed application materials on his behalf so that he could attend the School when he turned 18 months old in January 2012. This would allow M.K. to move from the home-based daycare he was attending and, like his older brother, attend the School.
The School accepted M.K. for full-day participation in its First Steps Program, with a contractual period running from January 23, 2012, through August 24, 2012.
M.K.’s first day at the School was January 23, 2012.
M.K.’s disability caused him to fall more frequently when walking or running than other toddlers in the First Steps Program.
During M.K.’s time at the School, each time that he fell and bumped his head prior to naptime (regardless of the time of day when the fall occurred, the circumstances surrounding the fall, the severity of the fall, or M.K.’s observed activity following the fall), M.K. was not allowed to nap for the remainder of that day.
M.K.’s parents met with Ms. Kelly on April 4, 2012. During that meeting, M.K.’s parents orally requested an exception to the “no-nap” provision of the School’s First Aid Policy. They further told Ms. Kelly that their pediatrician, with whom they had consulted, stated that she was not concerned about M.K.’s falls from his standing height and that M.K. could safely be allowed to nap following bumps to his head as long as he was not demonstrating signs of head injury. Ms. Kelly informed M.K.’s parents that she would refer the request to the Head of School, Monica Van Aken.
On April 27, 2012, M.K.’s mother contacted Ms. Kelly via email to “check in on our request for [M.K.] as I’ve not heard a response.” Ms. Van Aken emailed M.K.’s mother later that day to schedule a meeting.
On April 30, 2012, M.K.’s parents met with Ms. Van Aken in her office. At that time, Ms. Van Aken informed them that the School would not alter its policy of denying naps to a child who has bumped his or her head. She further informed them that the School was not a good placement for M.K. due to his falls, and that M.K. would no longer be allowed to attend the School.
M.K.’s parents were stunned at this news.
M.K.’s last day at the School was two days later, on May 4, 2012.
M.K.’s disenrollment from the School forced his parents into the stressful situation of expending time and other resources to locate reliable replacement daytime care arrangements for M.K., given both parents’ work commitments.
Because of their association with M.K., M.K.’s parents were denied a full and equal opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of the School.
Because of their association with M.K., M.K.’s parents were denied the ability to contract for, purchase, and utilize needed day care/education services offered and marketed by the School to parents and readily available to parents of other children without disabilities that manifested as did M.K.’s.
The School’s discrimination caused M.K.’s parents to feel stigmatized and mistreated, in addition to causing them anxiety, inconvenience, emotional pain, and anguish.
The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 30 are hereby re-alleged and incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein.
excluding or otherwise denying equal goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, or other opportunities to M.K.’s parents because of the known disability of their son, M.K., in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(E) and 28 C.F.R. § 36.205.
Grant judgment in favor of the United States and declare that Defendant violated Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 36.

References: § 12188
 § 1391
 § 1391
 § 12102
 § 12182
 § 36