Opinion ID: 769676
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: ADA and 504 Claims

Text: 32 Birmingham finally appeals the district court's dismissal of her ADA and 504 claims. Title II of the ADA prohibits qualified individuals with disabilities from being excluded from participation in or the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity. Randolph v. Rogers, 170 F.3d 850, 857 (8th Cir. 1999). Similarly, 504 of the Rehabilitation Act mandates that [n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall . . . be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . . 29 U.S.C. 794(a) (2000). We have held that the enforcement, remedies, and rights are the same under both Title II of the ADA and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. See Hoekstra, 103 F.3d at 626. 33 Where alleged ADA and 504 violations are based on educational services for disabled children, the plaintiff must prove that school officials acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment. See id. at 627. Birmingham does not contend that defendants acted in bad faith. Rather, she claims they acted with gross misjudgment by graduating Brenda early, without prior written notice to Rose. We cannot agree. 34 Both the school district and ADHS defendants acted in response to Brenda's allegations of abuse by Rose. Upon learning of the allegations, school officials concluded that it was in Brenda's best interest to graduate with the current class, so that she could focus on developing independent living skills. Before reaching this conclusion, however, they considered the Probate Court's competency determination, and consulted Brenda's ADHS social worker, who also agreed that Brenda's best option was to graduate. Finally, school officials discussed the option with Brenda, who told them that she wanted to graduate early. 35 The evidence shows that the defendants' decision to graduate Brenda early was made in response to her abuse allegations and with the intent of doing what was in her best interest. For these reasons, the district court correctly concluded that the defendant did not act in bad faith or with gross misjudgment.