M.P. ex rel. K. v. Independent School Dist.

Citation439 F.3d 865
Decision Date08 March 2006
Docket NumberNo. 05-1584.,05-1584.
PartiesM.P., by and through his parents and natural guardians, K. and D.P., Appellant, v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 721, NEW PRAGUE, MINNESOTA, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Margaret O'Sullivan Kane, argued, St. Paul, Minnesota (Amy Jane Goetz, St. Paul, Minnesota, on the brief), for appellant.

Charles Earl Long, argued, Minneapolis, Minnesota (Marie C. Skinner, Minneapolis, Minnesota, on the brief), for appellee.

Before SMITH, HEANEY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

M.P., by and through his parents, initiated this action against his former school district, Independent School District No. 721 (School District), alleging in relevant part claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1487 (2000) (IDEA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796 (2000). M.P.'s claims arose after the School District's school nurse disclosed that he is schizophrenic, prompting other students to verbally and physically harass him.1

On May 14, 2002, the district court granted the School District's motion for summary judgment on all claims. The court dismissed the IDEA claim because M.P. failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by enrolling in a school district outside the School District prior to initiating his administrative proceedings. The court dismissed the Rehabilitation Act claim because M.P. failed to present any evidence of deliberate indifference. M.P. appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 16, 2003, this court affirmed the district court's order with respect to the IDEA claim, see M.P. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 721, 326 F.3d 975, 980-83 (8th Cir.2003), and remanded the case with respect to the Rehabilitation Act claim to determine whether the School District had "acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment when it failed to take appropriate action to protect M.P.'s academic and safety interests after the disclosure." Implicit in this court's holding and remand was that M.P. could pursue a Section 504 claim independent of his IDEA claims without exhausting his administrative remedies.

The School District filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over M.P.'s remaining Rehabilitation Act claim. In the alternative, the School District filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Rather than conduct an inquiry into M.P.'s claim as this court had ordered, the district court granted the School District's motion to dismiss because M.P. failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, once again prolonging what we believe is M.P.'s entitlement to present his Section 504 claims before the court.

M.P. appeals, arguing that he was not required to exhaust administrative remedies for disability discrimination and harassment claims arising under the Rehabilitation Act, and that state administrative IDEA hearings do not provide students with relief or damages for disability discrimination and harassment claims.

Because the district court dismissed the matter with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), this court's standard of review is de novo. Duncan v. Dep't of Labor, 313 F.3d 445, 446 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam). M.P. asserts that he can sue for damages under the Rehabilitation Act for violation of his Section 504 rights without exhausting administrative remedies. We hold that he has a right of action for damages under Section 504 and reverse the district court.

Section 504 is a proscriptive, anti-discrimination statute that prohibits discrimination on the part of governmental actors to avoid due process and equal protection violations. To establish a prime facie case of disability discrimination under Section 504, the plaintiff must prove: "(1) [he] is a qualified individual with a disability; (2)[he] was denied the benefits of a program or activity of a public entity receiving federal funds; and (3)[he] was discriminated against based on [his] disability." Timothy H. v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 178 F.3d 968, 971 (8th Cir.1999). The plaintiff must also show bad faith or gross misjudgment to make a successful Section 504 violation claim. Monahan v. Nebraska, 687 F.2d 1164, 1171 (8th Cir. 1982). Examples of successful Section 504 claims include a blanket district-wide policy that shortened the school day for autistic children, Christopher S. v. Stanislaus County Office of Educ., 384 F.3d 1205, 1211-12 (9th Cir.2004); a school district's refusal to place a student with fibromyalgia in an honors class or permit her to obtain school credit by way of home instruction, Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 138, 148 (2nd Cir.2002); and a request for monetary damages for physical abuse and injury that a special education student suffered while at school, Witte...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • Ap ex rel. Peterson v. Anoka-Hennepin Sch. No. 11, No. 06-CV-2342 (PJS/RLE).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 17 de março de 2008
    ...established that bad faith or gross misjudgment is a necessary precondition to any § 504 claim. See, e.g., M.P. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 721, 439 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir.2006) (citing Monahan and saying, "[t]he plaintiff must also show bad faith or gross misjudgment to make a successful Sect......
  • Estate of Lance v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 28 de fevereiro de 2014
    ...ex rel. Latasha A. v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 629 F.3d 450, 453 (5th Cir.2010); see also M.P. ex rel. K. & D.P. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 721, New Prague, Minn., 439 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir.2006) (“ Section 504 is a proscriptive, anti-discrimination statute that prohibits discrimination on t......
  • Stewart v. Waco Indep. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 14 de março de 2013
    ...and effective remedial measures once notice of [the] harassment was provided to school authorities.” M.P. ex rel. K. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 721, 439 F.3d 865, 868 (8th Cir.2006)( M.P.II ). In sum, a school district refuses reasonable accommodations under § 504 when it fails to exercise pr......
  • Ryan v. Shawnee Mission Unified Sch. Dist. No. 512
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • 7 de julho de 2006
    ...plaintiff was not required to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit. See, e.g., M.P. ex rel. K. & D.P. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 721, 439 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir.2006) (noting the plaintiff did not need to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a disability discrimin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • THE LOST PROMISE OF DISABILITY RIGHTS.
    • United States
    • 1 de março de 2021
    ...arose out of the mother's advocacy with respect to the student's educational rights). (110.) M.P. ex ret. K. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 721, 439 F.3d 865, 867-68 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that parents alleging discrimination under section 504 and the ADA when the school nurse disclosed that th......
  • Victims without legal remedies: why kids need schools to develop comprehensive anti-bullying policies.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 72 No. 1, January 2009
    • 1 de janeiro de 2009
    ...receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. [section] 794 (2000). (157) See, e.g., M.P. ex rel. K. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 721, 439 F.3d 865, 867-68 (8th Cir. 2006); Scruggs v. Meriden Bd. of Educ., No. 3:03-CV-2224 (PCD), 2007 WL 2318851, at "16 (D. Conn. Aug. 10, (158) See M.P., 4......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT