Background
E.W., a transfer student who lived outside the Mt. Vernon school district, had depression and anxiety that impaired her ability to learn. The district adopted a Section 504 plan providing accommodations that included class breaks, testing adjustments, a “hot pass” to visit a counselor or nurse, and later a safety plan and expanded access to counselors.
E.W. also engaged in repeated misconduct, including threatening teachers, hitting students, swearing, insubordination, and disrupting lessons. During eighth grade, she accumulated ten days of out-of-school suspension and numerous absences. After her parents unsuccessfully requested a meeting to determine whether her conduct was a manifestation of her disability, the district denied her application to reenroll under a transfer policy permitting denial when a student has been suspended for at least ten school days or has a history of unexcused absences.
E.W. and her father sought damages under Title IX, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and other theories. A magistrate judge, acting with the parties’ consent, granted summary judgment to the district, and the plaintiffs appealed the Title IX, disability-discrimination, and retaliation rulings.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It held that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion by treating the Title IX claim as waived because the plaintiffs omitted it from the statement of claims required by the Southern District of Indiana’s case-management rules and did not answer the district’s waiver argument. The court therefore did not reach the merits of the Title IX claim.
On the ADA and Section 504 claims, the court held that the magistrate judge correctly applied the deliberate-indifference standard and that the district reasonably accommodated E.W. through its Section 504 and safety plans. Neither statute required the district to provide the plaintiffs’ preferred accommodation—a manifestation-determination meeting borrowed from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—and the ten suspension days independently supported denial of reenrollment under the transfer policy.
The retaliation claim also failed. Although the parents’ accommodation requests were protected activity and denial of reenrollment was adverse action, timing alone could not establish but-for causation given the district’s earlier warnings and E.W.’s continuing misconduct. The undisputed suspension record supplied a legitimate, nonpretextual reason for the decision.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff may waive a claim by omitting it from a statement of claims required by a district court’s local case-management rules.
- The ADA and Section 504 require reasonable accommodations, not a claimant’s preferred procedure; the court found no requirement under those statutes for an IDEA-style manifestation determination.
- Close timing between protected activity and an adverse decision did not establish retaliation where documented misconduct and prior warnings supported an independent, nonpretextual reason for the decision.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that schools may defeat failure-to-accommodate claims by showing a sustained, responsive accommodation process, even when they decline a specific procedure requested by parents. It also distinguishes the requirements of the ADA and Section 504 from procedural protections arising under the IDEA.
For litigators, the opinion underscores the consequences of omitting a pleaded theory from a court-required statement of claims and the difficulty of proving retaliation through temporal proximity when the adverse action rests on documented conduct predating the protected activity.