CTL v. Ashland Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 19 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–1790.,13–1790. |
| Citation | 743 F.3d 524 |
| Parties | CTL, a minor, by his Guardian ad Litem Chris J. TREBATOSKI, Eric Lindman, and Nichole Lindman, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant–Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Chris J. Trebatoski, Attorney, Weiss, Berzowski, Brady LLP, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Michael J. Cerjak, Attorney, Jeffrey A. Schmeckpeper, Attorney, Kasdorf, Lewis & Swietlik, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant–Appellee.
Before EASTERBROOK, SYKES, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.
A diabetic student and his parents sued his former public-school district for discriminating against him on the basis of his disability. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district, and we affirm. None of the evidence or allegations demonstrate either intentional discrimination or a failure by the school district to reasonably accommodate his diabetes.
Charlie 1 Lindman is a child with Type 1 diabetes. He manages his condition with an insulin pump, a personal diabetes manager, and a continuous glucose monitor. The insulin pump delivers a steady dose of insulin and can also deliver a larger dose (bolus) on demand through the personal diabetes manager. The glucose monitor tracks Charlie's blood-glucose level and sets off an alarm if it goes above or below certain thresholds. The glucose monitor is not perfectly accurate, so a blood-glucose test is often required. If Charlie's blood-glucose level is high, he is given insulin via the personal diabetes manager, and if low, he is given a snack.
Before Charlie entered kindergarten, his parents, Eric and Nichole Lindman, worked with the Ashland School District to develop a plan (called a 504 plan) to accommodate Charlie's disability and enable him to attend public school. Charlie's 504 plan incorporated his doctor's orders for how insulin doses and snacks were to be administered at school. Another portion of Charlie's 504 plan required his school to train three adult staff members as “Trained Diabetes Personnel.” These staff members had to be trained to administer insulin using Charlie's insulin pump, to monitor and respond to the alarms from his glucose monitor, and to respond to hyper/ hypoglycemia, among other things. The plan also required that all staff members who would interact with Charlie be given general training about diabetes and how to respond to certain situations.
Prior to Charlie's first day in kindergarten, the school hired Barb Vincent, a licensed nurse, to perform Charlie's diabetes care. The school also provided two separate training sessions: one general session that almost all staff who would interact with Charlie attended,2 and a second session specific to Charlie's equipment that the majority of those same staff attended.
The Lindmans were mostly satisfied with the school throughout their son's kindergarten year, except that they believed Vincent was the school's only staff member who had the proper training to be qualified as Trained Diabetes Personnel. Nichole communicated with the school many times about the matter, but never received a satisfactory response.
The following school year, the situation deteriorated. After the school hired Pam Webber as the school-nurse supervisor, disputes arose between Webber, the Lindmans, and Vincent over how to manage Charlie's condition. Vincent would occasionally deviate from the insulin dosage recommended by the personal diabetes manager. She communicated these decisions to the Lindmans, who approved of her exercising judgment on a case-by-case basis. Webber, on the other hand, believed that Wisconsin law required strict adherence to doctors' orders and did not allow school nurses to follow parents' instructions. Webber contacted Rachel Gallagher, a school-nurse consultant for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, who agreed with Webber's interpretation of Wisconsin law. Gallagher also suggested that Webber contact Charlie's medical team for clarification on whether the school was permitted to modify insulin doses as the Lindmans desired, but it's unclear whether Webber actually did so.
In the fall of that school year, the Lindmans filed a complaint with the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, arguing that the school was violating the 504 plan by failing to have three Trained Diabetes Personnel and refusing to allow Vincent to adjust insulin doses on a case-by-case basis. They also accused Webber of obstinacy and failing to communicate with them about Charlie's treatment.
Vincent also found Webber frustrating to work with. When Vincent prodded her to learn more about the personalized care required by Charlie, Webber responded: “I'm an R.N., I can figure it out.” On one school day, Vincent handed off care of Charlie to Webber. Prior to leaving, Vincent warned Webber that Charlie was trending high. When she returned, Vincent discovered that Webber had given Charlie a fruit roll-up during gym, setting off the alarm on his glucose monitor and requiring Vincent to administer an extra dose of insulin. Vincent rebuked Webber for this. Webber responded that Vincent had no right to question her treatment and from then on refused to talk to her.
Shortly thereafter, Vincent was reprimanded by the school administration for being rude in her interactions with coworkers. The school cited three separate examples, all stemming from her treatment of diabetic children. She disputed the claims and tried to explain her actions in a letter, but she was told that she needed to be more diplomatic or might be discharged. After reaching an impasse in her attempts to address the complaints, Vincent decided to resign.
After Vincent's resignation on November 5, a nurse assigned to the third through fifth grades was transferred and took over Charlie's care until the school hired two more nurses on January 18. During this time, the Lindmans grew increasingly frustrated with the school's communication and continued refusal to adjust his treatment on a case-by-case basis. Around January 25 the Lindmans decided, with the approval of their doctor, to send Charlie to school with edible fast-acting glucose to allow him to self-treat if he was feeling low. Webber again felt that this violated Charlie's 504 plan, so the nurses requested a doctor's order, but due to a mix-up, the school did not immediately receive the doctor's orders.
On January 29 the school entered into a mediation agreement with the Lindmans to resolve the complaint they had filed with the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. The agreement required the school to conduct training for Webber and two other nurses by February 28. It also more generally required the school to follow the 504 plan.
On February 11 the school followed up with the Lindmans and Charlie's doctor about the fast-acting glucose. The next day Charlie's doctor faxed an order (at 4:12 p.m., after the school day ended) that permitted Charlie to eat “15 grams of carbohydrates that he [would] have with him” in the event of a low-sensor alarm from his glucose monitor. Prior to the receipt of the order, the school had a Valentine's Day party. Webber had taken Charlie's fast-acting glucose away from him and told him that a nurse would have to sit with him all day if he kept it. The Lindmans may have been confused over which happened first because they claim it was taken away in violation of Charlie's doctor's orders.
The following Monday, February 15, was a holiday. Charlie attended school on the 16th, but his parents called him in sick on the 17th and 18th. Also on the 18th, the Lindmans met with the school nurses and confronted them with Webber's actions on the 12th and 27 additional alleged violations of the 504 plan that Nichole had charted between January 25 and February 12.3 The meeting was unsuccessful, and the Lindmans removed Charlie from the school that very day.
The Lindmans placed Charlie in a private Catholic school with no nurses or medically trained staff and no formal plan for diabetes care for him. The Lindmans then filed a lawsuit on Charlie's behalf alleging disability discrimination in violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, requesting both an injunction against the school and damages for the cost of private school. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school, and the Lindmans appealed.
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, construing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Lindmans. Anderson v. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989, 994 (7th Cir.2012). Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.;Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
Before addressing the merits of the appeal, we note a threshold jurisdictional question. During oral argument, we learned that the Lindmans had moved to a different school district, mooting their request for an injunction. Brown v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp., 442 F.3d 588, 596 (7th Cir.2006). When asked whether damages were available under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act, the parties were unable to provide a satisfactory answer, so we ordered supplemental briefing to determine whether the entire case was moot. As it turns out, though neither party cited it, the question is answered by Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 184–85, 122 S.Ct. 2097, 153 L.Ed.2d 230 (2002), which recognized that compensatory damages are available in private causes of action under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, but held that punitive damages are not.4 Therefore, we turn to the merits.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and section 202 of the ADA both prohibit discrimination against the disabled. Section 504 provides...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duffer v. United Cont'l Holdings, Inc.
...and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here, Plaintiff. See CTL ex rel. Trebatoski v. Ashland School District , 743 F.3d 524, 528 (7th Cir.2014).II. FactsA. Merger between United and ContinentalIn October 2010, pre-merger United (post-merger United is ......
-
Durnell v. Holcomb
...Dep't of Corrections , 199 F.3d 374, 375 (7th Cir. 2000) (ADA applies to prisoners), and schools, CTL ex Rel. Trebatoski v. Ashland School Dist. , 743 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2014) (ADA applies to students), and Defendants have not offered any compelling reason why foster homes should be tr......
-
Stanek v. St. Charles Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist.
...more than a bare violation of IDEA is required to establish disability discrimination in an educational program. CTL v. Ashland Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 524, 529–30 (7th Cir.2014) ; Sellers v. Sch. Bd. of Manassas, 141 F.3d 524, 528–29 (4th Cir.1998). But Matthew has alleged enough to state a p......
-
I.L. v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...it remains an open question. See Paulone v. City of Frederick, 787 F.Supp.2d 360, 373 (D. Md. 2011) ; CTL ex rel. Trebatoski v. Ashland Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 524, 528 n.4 (7th Cir. 2014) ; Pierce v. Dist. of Columbia, 128 F.Supp.3d 250, 278 (D.D.C. 2015).8 The Third Circuit adopted this test......