Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-1474
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-01068-JFM)
Argued:
Decided:
April 8, 2016
ARGUED:
Martin Jay Cirkiel, CIRKIEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Round
Rock,
Texas;
Tracy
Diana
Rezvani,
REZVANI
VOLIN
P.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Andrew G. Scott, PESSIN KATZ
LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Edmund J.
OMeally, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.
Selene Almazan-Altobelli, COUNCIL OF PARENT ATTORNEYS AND
ADVOCATES, INC., Towson, Maryland; Mark B. Martin, LAW OFFICES
OF MARK B. MARTIN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Amicus Council
of Parent Attorneys and Advocates.
Francisco M. Negrn, Jr.,
General Counsel, NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Amici National School Boards Association and
Maryland Association of Boards of Education.
Board),
students
to
alleging
harass
S.B.
primarily
based
on
that
his
by
allowing
disability,
other
the
Board
S.B.s stepfather,
by
retaliating
against
him
for
advocating
on
S.B.s
behalf. 1
After
extensive
discovery,
the
district
court
granted
And while
with
the
deliberate
indifference
necessary
to
hold
it
I.
A.
In reviewing the district courts grant of summary judgment
to the Board, we present the facts of the case in the light most
favorable to S.B. and T.L., the non-moving parties.
See Blake
was
student
with
disabilities
such
as
Attention
2010, were
bullied
him,
difficult
sometimes
ones.
S.B.s
severely.
Some
fellow
of
students
S.B.s
often
classmates
and
the
school,
in
turn,
investigated
each
reported
incident.
In
offenders,
using
conferences,
From
almost
case,
the
school
such
as
student
measures
parent
January
every
phone
2013
to
calls,
June
detentions,
2013,
the
school
disciplined
warnings
and
the
and
suspensions.
also
assigned
parents
S.B.
was
were
very
concerned
confronting
at
about
school.
the
Both
bullying
had
close
director
and
physical
education
teacher.
A.L.
conversation
publicize
her
with
complaints.
OBrien
In
on
the
same
month,
in
order
both
to
parents
November
2012,
OBrien
denied
T.L.
the
opportunity
to
T.L.
be
would
not
teaching
the
schools
summer
physical
education class that year, though he had taught it for the three
previous years.
Just over a year later, in June 2014, S.B. graduated on
time
from
Aberdeen
High
School.
During
high
school,
S.B.
on
his
disability,
student-on-student
against
S.B.s
primarily
bullying
parents
and
when
by
failing
harassment,
they
sought
to
and
to
prevent
retaliated
remedy
that
discrimination.
The focus of the case was narrowed in the district court.
First, in September 2013, the district court granted in part the
Boards
motion
to
dismiss,
dismissing
from
the
suit
all
discrimination
under
504
and
the
ADA,
and
the
court
was
skeptical
that
the
claims
could
succeed,
expressing doubt that S.B. could establish that the Board had
discriminated
against
him
by
acting
with
deliberate
After
substantial
discovery,
in
April
2015
court,
founded.
its
initial
skepticism
the
district
According to the
proved
to
be
well-
discovery
that
has
been
taken
and
the
voluminous
papers that have been filed, it is now clear that the action is
a frivolous one.
Specifically,
Id. at
12.
regarding
S.B.s
claim
of
disability-based
its
absolutely
decision
no
discriminated
misjudgment
on
evidence
against
or
Id. at 2.
different
in
S.B.
the
by
deliberate
record
acting
Id.
there
was
the
Board
had
that
with
indifference
student-on-student harassment.
that
bad
in
faith,
responding
gross
to
district
court
Id.
concluded
that
there
was
no
evidence
Id.
S.B.
and
T.L.
timely
appealed
the
district
courts
judgment.
II.
We review the district courts grant of summary judgment de
novo.
Summary
judgment
genuine
dispute
as
entitled
to
[]
to
is
any
appropriate
judgment
as
material
a
when
fact
matter
of
is
no
the
movant
is
law.
Dash
v.
and
there
Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a)).
to
S.B.
and
T.L.
as
the
non-moving
parties
and
draw
all
evidence
before
summary judgment.
it,
then
we
will
affirm
the
grant
of
of
her
or
his
disability,
be
excluded
from
the
financial assistance.
29 U.S.C. 794(a).
According to S.B.,
he was subjected for years to sustained and pervasive studenton-student harassment and bullying based on his disability, and
by failing to prevent that harassment, the Board itself engaged
in disability-based discrimination prohibited by 504. 3
1.
The Supreme Court addressed a very similar claim in Davis
v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999), a
student-on-student sexual harassment case brought under Title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a).
Like
to
schools
and
educational
programs
that
receive
shall,
on
the
basis
of
sex,
be
excluded
from
Id.
Given that
10
it
was
deliberately
harassment.
The
indifferent
to
known
acts
of
such
rule
that
Court
started
with
the
well-established
be
liable
for
certain
conduct
before
Id. at 640.
private
damages
liability,
but
harassment will.
deliberate
indifference
to
known
acts
of
Id. at 64243.
think
it
clear
that
the
same
reasoning
applies
to
504
982,
99596
(5th
Cir.
2014)
(citing
cases
from
other
circuits); S.S. v. E. Ky. Univ., 532 F.3d 445, 454 (6th Cir.
2008)
(citing
cases
from
district
11
courts).
As
noted
above,
504,
like
Title
IX,
is
Spending
Clause
legislation,
which
language
is
strikingly
similar
to
And 504s
Title
IXs,
argues
by
that
holding
our
in
circuit
Sellers
v.
has
adopted
School
Board
a
of
different
City
of
Manassas, 141 F.3d 524, 529 (4th Cir. 1998), that a school may
be liable for damages under 504 if it acts with bad faith or
gross misjudgment.
in
an
excess
of
applied
the
bad
faith
or
gross
See District
this case, because Sellers did not involve school liability for
student-on-student
misconduct.
Instead,
12
Sellers
presented
issues
by
school
To resolve the
liability
arising
from
the
504
context,
the
Davis
deliberate
indifference
his
disability;
that
the
disability-based
harassment
was
school
knew
about
the
disability-based
student-on-student
See Lance,
743 F.3d at 996; S.S., 532 F.3d at 454; cf. Davis, 526 U.S. at
64950
(same
under
Title
IX).
Like
the
district
court,
we
suffered
disability,
and
as
reported
required
Court Decision at 2.
generously
slightest
to
of
S.B.,
to
for
the
on
his
Read most
record
that
S.B.
of
based
District
evidence
violation
was
504.
the
school
contains,
was
at
best,
harassed
only
because
of
the
his
suggest
that
S.B.
most
often
was
the
victim
(and
standard.
harassed
because
Even
of
assuming
his
that
disability,
14
S.B.
none
was
of
on
occasion
the
communications
or
harassment
reports
filed
by
S.B.
or
his
on
his
disability
but
the
Supreme
Court
rejected
to
impose
liability
under
what
amount[s]
to
school
knew
or
should
have
known
(emphasis
in
the
deliberate
indifference
required
by
Davis.
See
not be held liable under Title IX or 504 for what its students
do, but only for what is effectively an official decision by
[the school] not to remedy student-on-student harassment.
U.S. at 642.
eliminate
526
student-on-student
harassment,
or
to
impose
the
not
require
that
schools
15
eradicate
each
instance
of
will
be
liable
where
its
response
for
student-on-student
. . .
or
lack
Instead, a
harassment
thereof
is
only
clearly
Davis, 526
U.S. at 648.
Without
making
any
effort
to
tie
his
argument
to
the
record, S.B. asserts generally that the Board either did nothing
in
response
confronted,
to
repeated
or
failed
complaints
to
investigate
about
the
and
bullying
address
he
those
nearly
measures
every
case,
ranging
from
suspensions.
the
school
parent
disciplined
phone
calls
to
offenders
detentions
And
with
to
That is
deliberate
indifference,
or
that
any
half-hearted
series
verbal
reprimands
is
leaving
student-on-
Patterson v.
Hudson Area Schs., 551 F.3d 438, 44849 (6th Cir. 2009); see
also Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 702 F.3d 655, 66970
(2d Cir. 2012) (school response to student-on-student harassment
may
be
unreasonable
implementing
little
where
more
school
than
dragged
half-hearted
its
feet
before
measures).
But
calibrate
disciplinary
response
to
student-on-student
In this
case, no reasonable juror could find that the school was less
17
than
fully
engaged
disciplinary
harassment
behalf.
with
sanctions
and
to
taking
S.B.s
punish
other
problems,
and
deter
protective
using
escalating
student-on-student
measures
on
S.B.s
making
prima
facie
case
of
retaliation
by
showing
v.
F.D.I.C.,
retaliation claim). 6
257
F.3d
373,
392
(4th
Cir.
2001)
See
(ADA
demonstrate
that
the
forbidden retaliation.
proffered
reason
is
pretext
for
Id.
19
the
nevertheless
reasonable
between
was
jury
the
activity.
district
court,
entitled
could
Boards
however,
to
find
summary
the
adverse
we
judgment
necessary
action
think
and
Board
because
causal
T.L.s
no
connection
protected
the
principal
OBrien,
because
of
the
According to
number
of
female
teacher,
and
he
selected
male
teacher
who
had
more
And the
shifts
explanation
to
T.L.
to
demonstrate
that
this
is
activity.
that proposition.
summary
judgment
once
an
employer
has
offered
Without
more than his own assertions, T.L. cannot meet his burden at
summary judgment.
F.3d
696,
70506
Cir.
2001)
(rejecting
plaintiffs
III.
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judgment of
the district court.
AFFIRMED
S.B. and T.L. also appeal the denial of their motion for
sanctions based on alleged spoliation of evidence by the Board,
and argue that the district court erred in ignoring certain
evidentiary objections.
We find no error in the district
courts ruling on spoliation, and our decision today relies on
none of the evidence to which S.B. and T.L. object.
21