Opinion ID: 1272595
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: July 24, 2001 Summary Judgment Ruling.

Text: The Agency then moved for summary judgment, advancing several new arguments and reiterating their earlier Eleventh Amendment arguments. The H. family filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing (1) that the administrative hearing decision on the IDEA was res judicata with regard to the question whether the girls were denied a FAPE; and (2) that the appropriate substantive standard in an action for damages under § 504 is whether a defendant demonstrated deliberate indifference to the disabled individual's accommodation needs, not whether a defendant acted with discriminatory animus. The district court granted the H. family's cross-motion in its entirety, and granted in part and denied in part the Agency's motion. In granting the motion, the court held that [d]efendants are precluded from arguing that Michelle and Natalie were not denied FAPE. The court rejected most of the Agency's arguments on summary judgment but agreed with the Agency that non-equitable monetary damages are not available under the IDEA and that the appropriate defendant for monetary relief is the state, not state officials in their official capacities. As a result of these rulings, the only remaining claim as of 2001 was the § 504 cause of action against the state itself for monetary relief.