## Facts

- A.G., a student with emotional disabilities, received special-education services under an individualized education program (IEP) in a public school district.
- After escalating disruptive behaviors, the district proposed placing A.G. at Roadrunner School, a separate public day school for students with emotional disabilities.
- A.G.’s parents consented to the placement after assurances that physical restraint would be used only if A.G. posed a danger to herself or others.
- While at Roadrunner, A.G. experienced multiple incidents involving physical restraints (including by school resource officers), use of an isolated “intervention room,” and law-enforcement involvement, including at least one arrest and removal to a police precinct.
- A.G. and her parents alleged the district failed to provide reasonable supports and accommodations (e.g., adequate behavioral planning and less restrictive interventions) and instead relied on restraint, seclusion, and police involvement.
- The parties settled the IDEA claims, leaving claims under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, and Arizona tort law.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the district on the § 504/ADA and all tort claims, reasoning that parental consent to placement and failure to request specific accommodations barred the federal claims, and it denied the district’s request for taxable costs.

## Issues

1. Whether settlement of IDEA claims and parental consent to an IEP/placement preclude later claims for damages under § 504 and Title II based on disability discrimination in the provision of educational services.
2. What legal standard governs § 504/Title II claims in the education context: a “meaningful access”/reasonable accommodation inquiry or a heightened “bad faith or gross misjudgment” requirement.
3. Whether the evidence could permit a jury to find denial of FAPE and disability discrimination under § 504 and Title II based on the district’s responses to A.G.’s disability-related behaviors.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper on Arizona tort claims arising from the alleged restraints, seclusion, and related conduct.
5. Whether the district court’s costs ruling could stand after appellate changes to the merits disposition.

## Decision

- Reversed summary judgment for the district on the § 504 and Title II claims.
- Reversed in part the grant of summary judgment on the Arizona tort claims, allowing certain claims to proceed.
- Vacated the costs order and remanded for reconsideration in light of the altered merits posture.
- Held the district court applied incorrect legal standards and improperly treated parental consent as a waiver or complete bar to federal disability rights.

## Legal Principles

- The IDEA, § 504, and Title II provide distinct causes of action; resolution or settlement of IDEA claims does not, by itself, eliminate potential damages claims under § 504 and Title II for disability discrimination in public education.
- For § 504 and Title II education claims, the core inquiry is whether the student was denied meaningful access to public education or discriminated against by reason of disability, including through failure to provide reasonable accommodations and comparable educational opportunity.
- Parental agreement to an IEP or placement is not an automatic waiver of the student’s statutory rights under § 504 and Title II and does not bar claims based on later discriminatory acts or failures to accommodate.
- Evidence that a school relied on restraint, seclusion, and law-enforcement intervention, rather than implementing appropriate educational and behavioral supports, can support a triable claim of denial of FAPE and disability-based discrimination under § 504 and Title II.
- When an appellate decision changes which party prevails on the merits, a district court’s costs determination should be reconsidered on remand.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that parental consent to a special-education placement and settlement of IDEA claims did not foreclose § 504 and Title II damages claims, and that the record contained triable issues as to whether the district denied A.G. meaningful access to education through inadequate accommodations and reliance on restraint, seclusion, and police involvement; it also reinstated certain state tort claims and required reconsideration of costs.


A.G. ex rel. Grundemann v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 815 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2016)