## Facts

- C.M., a minor student with profound developmental disabilities, attended Lantana Middle School in the Palm Beach County School District.
- During sixth and seventh grades, C.M. exhibited severe behaviors, including attempts to harm himself and others.
- School staff repeatedly used physical restraints on C.M., primarily techniques associated with the Professional Crisis Management Association (PCMA), which were intended for emergency incidents.
- On at least one occasion, staff used restraint techniques associated with “TEAM,” a program generally reserved for school police in emergency safety situations.
- For summary-judgment purposes, the School Board conceded that C.M. was restrained 89 times over 14 months, including 27 prone restraints.
- School records characterized restraints as responses to dangerous or disruptive behavior rather than discipline.
- Two physicians diagnosed C.M. with PTSD and attributed the precipitating trauma to repeated restraints in the classroom.
- C.M.’s parents alleged the restraints were excessive and unnecessary and that the district failed to properly train and supervise staff on restraint use with students with disabilities.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence could support a § 504 Rehabilitation Act claim that C.M. was subjected to discrimination solely by reason of disability through repeated restraints and inadequate services.
2. Whether the record supported a triable finding of intentional discrimination for compensatory damages under § 504, requiring deliberate indifference or bad faith/gross misjudgment rather than negligence.
3. Whether summary judgment was warranted as to claims against individual administrators and related theories of liability.

## Decision

- The court denied the School Board’s motion for summary judgment on the central § 504 claim, finding genuine disputes of material fact on discrimination and the required intent standard for damages.
- The court held that the number and nature of restraints (including prone restraints), combined with medical evidence of PTSD, could permit a reasonable jury to find deliberate indifference or gross misjudgment.
- The court granted summary judgment in part on certain claims and as to some individual defendants, narrowing parties and theories, while leaving the primary § 504 claim against the School Board for trial.

## Legal Principles

- A § 504 plaintiff must show: (1) disability; (2) qualification for participation in the program; (3) exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination; and (4) discrimination solely by reason of disability.
- Compensatory damages under § 504 require intentional discrimination, commonly shown by deliberate indifference or bad faith/gross misjudgment; mere negligence or incorrect educational decisions are insufficient.
- At summary judgment, extensive and repetitive physically intrusive interventions, alleged training/supervision failures, and evidence of serious harm may support an inference of institutional deliberate indifference, requiring trial resolution of disputed facts.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the parents’ § 504 claim to proceed because a jury could reasonably find that the school district’s repeated restraints—particularly prone restraints—together with evidence of PTSD and alleged institutional failures in training or oversight, rose above negligence and could satisfy the intentional-discrimination requirement for damages.


J.P.M. v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd., 916 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2013)