N. v. Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District

Background

N.N. and her mother, T.T., sued the Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The motion addressed only the Section 504 and Title II claims. Plaintiffs alleged that, during the 2017–2018 school year, the District failed to evaluate N.N. and failed to provide reasonable accommodations, aides, supports, and services needed for meaningful and equal access to public education at Los Altos High School.

Plaintiffs contended that the District dismissed N.N.’s mental-health issues as substance or alcohol abuse and family-conflict problems. They argued that the District failed to evaluate her for an appropriate placement and failed to provide mental-health or academic support services. They characterized those failures as denial of a free appropriate public education, or FAPE, under federal regulations and District policies.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is a procedure for deciding a claim without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The party seeking summary judgment must identify evidence showing that no material factual dispute exists. If that party meets the initial burden, the opposing party must present admissible evidence showing a genuine issue for trial.

For Section 504 and Title II claims, the court explained that a plaintiff must show that she is a qualified person with a disability, was denied a reasonable accommodation needed for meaningful access to public services, and was denied access by a program receiving federal financial assistance. To obtain money damages, the plaintiff must also prove intentional discrimination. The applicable deliberate-indifference standard requires knowledge that harm to a federally protected right was substantially likely and a failure to act on that likelihood.

Court’s analysis

The court found no dispute that N.N. had been diagnosed with anxiety and that the District knew of the diagnosis by fall 2017. But the court identified factual disputes about the District’s appropriate course of action, what it should have done and when, what N.N. needed to access her education, and whether the District acted with deliberate indifference. The parties also disagreed about matters that could require expert testimony, including which accommodations or placements would have allowed N.N. meaningful access to education.

Because resolving the Section 504 and Title II claims required a highly fact-specific and individualized assessment of N.N.’s circumstances, the court concluded that the claims could not be resolved on summary judgment and were matters for a jury to decide.

Disposition

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to their Section 504 and Title II claims. The order did not decide whether the District ultimately violated those laws.