Ambrose v. St. Johns Cnty. Sch. Bd.

664 F.Supp.3d 1322

Ashton AMBROSE and B.D.,by and through his Parent, Ashton Ambrose, Plaintiffs, v. ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant.

Case No. 3:22-cv-392-MMH-PDB

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division

Signed March 27, 2023

Kevin Andrew Golembiewski, Disability Rights Florida, Tampa, FL, Lauren Brittany Eversole, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Kristen Candice Diot, Michael P. Spellman, Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant.

ORDER

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, United States District judge

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant St. Johns County School Board's Motion to Dismiss or for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 13; Motion), filed on May 27, 2022.¹ In the Motion, Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' Corrected Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Demanding a Jury Trial (Doc. 11; Complaint) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),² Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)). See generally Motion. Plaintiffs Ashton Ambrose and B.D. filed a timely response in opposition to the Motion. See Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 14; Response), filed June 17, 2022. Plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 24) on January 4, 2023. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.

I. Motion to Dismiss Standard

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the complaint as true. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n.1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); see also Lotierzo v. Woman's World Med. Ctr., Inc., 278 F.3d 1180, 1182 (11th Cir. 2002). In addition, all reasonable inferences should be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. See Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 705 (11th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, the plaintiff must still meet some minimal pleading requirements. Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomm., 372 F.3d 1250, 1262-63 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Indeed, while "[s]pecific facts are not necessary," the complaint should " 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.' " Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Further, the plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955).

The "plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of [her] entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citations omitted); see also Jackson, 372 F.3d at 1262 (explaining that "conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal") (citations and quotations omitted). Indeed, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions," which simply "are not entitled to [an] assumption of truth." See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Thus, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955).

II. Background³

Ambrose is a disabled veteran. Complaint ¶ 1. She suffers from lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, an anxiety disorder, and a panic disorder. Id. ¶ 14. Her young son, B.D., attends Hickory Creek Elementary School, which is in Defendant's school district. See id. ¶¶ 1, 19. Other Hickory Creek students in B.D.'s subdivision take the bus to school, see id. ¶¶ 37-38, but, because of Defendant's bus transportation policy, B.D. cannot do so. See id. ¶¶ 40-41. Pursuant to its policy, Defendant does not provide bus transportation for families that live less than 2 miles from the school. Id. ¶¶ 3, 33. B.D. lives 1.9 miles from the school, and as a result does not qualify to ride the bus. See id. ¶¶ 4, 40. But Ambrose cannot drive B.D. to school because of her disabilities, which frequently prevent her from leaving the house. See id. ¶¶ 43, 46. She also cannot walk B.D. to school due to her mobility constraints. Id. ¶ 44. And B.D., who is five years old,⁴ cannot walk to school safely by himself. See id. ¶¶ 44-45.

With B.D.'s inability to ride the bus and Ambrose's inability to provide reliable transportation, Ambrose must "beg family members and neighbors for assistance" in taking B.D. to and from school. Id. ¶¶ 47-48. When no assistance is available, B.D. misses school. See id. ¶¶ 49, 54. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant had "a 'hardship exemption' to the two-mile rule" at the beginning of B.D.'s kindergarten year, so Ambrose requested a waiver to allow B.D. to ride the bus. Id. ¶¶ 51-52. But Defendant denied the request, and later "removed the hardship exemption from its policies."⁵ Id. ¶ 53. A few months later,⁶ Ambrose asked Defendant to modify the two-mile rule to "provide her a reasonable modification to the two-mile rule by allowing B.D. to use the bus stop at the front of their subdivision." Id. ¶ 55. Defendant declined to do so. Id. ¶ 56. Ambrose asked Defendant to reconsider in March of 2022, asserting that the denial violated her and B.D.'s federal rights, but Defendant ignored her request. Id. ¶¶ 57-58. To date, Defendant has not provided Ambrose or B.D. with any accommodation or modification to its rules. Id. ¶ 59.

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek compensatory and declaratory relief, along with an injunction requiring Defendant "to provide a reasonable modification to the two-mile rule." Id. at 20. In Count I, Ambrose asserts that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by failing to accommodate her disability. See id. ¶¶ 70-74. In Count II, B.D. raises a claim of associational discrimination under the ADA based on his mother's disability status. See id. ¶¶ 78-85. In Counts III and IV, each Plaintiff asserts the same claim as in Counts I and II, respectively, but under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Section 504"). See id. ¶¶ 89-96, 100-07. Last, in Count V, Ambrose alleges that she experienced unlawful discrimination under Article I, Section II of the Florida Constitution. See id. ¶¶ 110-15.

III. Summary of Arguments

In the Motion, Defendant contends that both Ambrose and B.D. have failed to state any claim for relief. See Motion at 2-3. As to Ambrose's claims, Defendant makes three primary arguments. First, Defendant argues that Ambrose is not a qualified individual with a disability as defined by the ADA because she does not meet the essential requirements for bus transportation services or education. See id. at 7-10. Second, Defendant argues that Ambrose has not been denied meaningful access to any benefit because B.D. "makes it to and from school 'most of the time.' " See id. at 12. Third, Defendant argues that Ambrose was not subjected to disability-based discrimination because her home's location—not her disability—was the reason she was denied services. See id. at 15-17. Further, Defendant asserts that Ambrose cannot establish intentional discrimination because she never notified Defendant of any hazardous conditions on B.D.'s route, and because school officials responded reasonably to Ambrose's requests for accommodation. See id. at 16-17. According to Defendant, these arguments foreclose all of Ambrose's claims. See id. at 6 (asserting that the same standards apply to Ambrose's claims under the ADA, Section 504, and the Florida Constitution).⁷ Ambrose responds that she is a qualified individual with a disability because she could benefit from Defendant's transportation policy if it were reasonably modified to accommodate her disabilities. Id. at 14. She further argues that the policy subjects her to discriminatory effects because the two-mile rule disadvantages her compared with non-disabled parents. See Response at 13. According to Ambrose, in her Complaint she pleads that Defendant subjected her to discrimination and was deliberately indifferent to her needs by refusing to either grant a waiver or modify the two-mile rule. Response at 18-19.

As to B.D., Defendant primarily argues that neither Title II of the ADA nor Section 504 authorize associational discrimination claims under the facts that Plaintiffs allege. See Motion at 17-18.⁸ Defendant relies on Todd v. Carstarphen, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1311 (N.D. Ga. 2017), in support of this argument. See Motion at 17-18. In response, B.D. contends that Todd was wrongly decided and that B.D.'s claim is cognizable under McCullum v. Orlando Regional Healthcare Sys., Inc., 768 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir. 2014). See Response at 6. B.D. further argues that Title II, Section 504, and the implementing regulations require the application of the same associational discrimination standard as a Title I or III ADA claim. See id. at 6-9. Accordingly, B.D. asserts that Defendant impeded his access to school based on his relationship to Ambrose, and thus argues that he has stated a cognizable claim for associational discrimination under the ADA and Section 504. See id. at 11-12.

IV. Discussion

The Court will first address Ambrose's claims before turning to B.D.'s claims of associational discrimination.

A. Ambrose's ADA and Section 504 Claims

Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall,...