K.H. v. Antioch Unified School District

Background

K.H., a minor represented by his guardian ad litem, sued Antioch Unified School District (AUSD), Catapult Learning West, LLC, doing business as Sierra School of Antioch, and several individuals. The opinion concerns AUSD’s motion for summary judgment on claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The alleged incident occurred on December 12, 2017. K.H. left his classroom with the teacher’s permission. Teacher aides Jonique Andrews and Samuel McBride allegedly grabbed and dragged him back to the classroom, held his hands behind his back and the back of his neck, slammed him into the floor, and placed him in a two-person prone restraint. The opinion states that he suffered a gash under his eye, a split lip, and bleeding gums. The aides worked for Sierra School, a contractor.

Legal issue

The court considered whether AUSD could be held responsible under a theory of respondeat superior. That doctrine can make an organization responsible for certain acts of its employees or contractors. The court described conflicting lines of authority concerning whether the ADA and Section 504 permit this type of liability without notice to the public entity.

The court held that respondeat superior remains available under the ADA and Section 504, including for acts by contractors, but only when the district had advance notice of the problem or risk of harm to the student through someone with authority. The court also stated that a public entity cannot avoid its obligations under federal discrimination laws simply by contracting out the relevant work.

Ruling

The court found that, despite ample opportunity for discovery, K.H. presented no evidence that AUSD had notice of the harm or risk of harm. Because Andrews and McBride allegedly acted without authority at AUSD and without notice to an AUSD authority figure, the court concluded that their actions could not establish respondeat superior liability against AUSD.

The court therefore granted AUSD’s motion for summary judgment on K.H.’s ADA and Section 504 claims. The court also certified the order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), finding that the order involved a controlling legal question and that there was substantial disagreement in the relevant precedent. The opinion states that K.H.’s state-law claims against AUSD remained pending, with deadlines for summary-judgment motions on those claims.

Disposition

AUSD’s motion for summary judgment: granted.

Certification for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b): certified.

State-law claims against AUSD: remained pending according to the opinion.