Doe v. Bd. of Educ.

1

JANE DOE, the student; by and through her parents, K.M. and A.M.; Plaintiff, v. KNOX COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; Defendant.

No. 3:22-cv-63-KAC-DCP

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville

December 13, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

KATHERINE A. CRYTZER United States District Judge

This action is before the Court on Defendant Knox County Board of Education's (“KCBOE”) “Motion for Summary Judgment” [Doc. 94-1]. For the reasons provided below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's “Motion for Summary Judgment” [Doc. 94-1]. The only remaining claims are Plaintiff's ADA Discrimination Reasonable Accommodation claim and Rehabilitation Act Discrimination Reasonable Accommodation claim.

I. Background^[1]

A. Factual Background

During the 2021-2022 school year, Plaintiff Jane Doe was a ninth-grade student at L&N Stem Academy (“L&N”) in the Knox County School System [See Doc. 94-4 at 56-57 (504 Grievance form Accommodation Request Response (“504 Grievance Response”) at 1-2)].

Doe has misophonia [See id. at 57]. “Misophonia is a medical condition, initially coined in 2001, where patients suffer from heightened autonomic nervous system arousal (extreme anger, irritation, escape behavior, disgust) when confronted with specific sounds, often eating sounds, but not exclusively eating sounds.” [Doc. 95-2 at 2 (Declaration of Eric Storch (“Storch Decl.”) ¶ 5)]. Doe's condition manifests as “an extreme [re]action to hearing normal sounds of eating gum and chewing food,” resulting in her “misinterpret[ing] certain repetitive humangenerated sounds” [See Doc. 95-11 at 8 (Deposition of Jane Doe (“Doe Dep.”) 29:20-25); see also Doc. 95-29 at 1 (10/22/2021 Email to Melissa Walsh)]. When Doe's misophonia “is triggered, it sends her into a fight or flight instance” that is “hard for her to control” [Doc. 95-16 at 1 (S-Team Meeting Results (“S-Team Results”)]. “When she is in a classroom and is triggered, there is no instruction or learning that is happening[,] and she is instead there is [sic] panic” [Id.]. Doe states that she “miss[ed] about half her educational time at L&N” because her misophonia caused her to leave class [See Doc. 95-11 at 45 (Doe Dep. 174:17-19; 240: 6-11)].

In early fall 2021, Plaintiff Jane Doe and her parents K.M. and A.M. requested “an accommodation of a ban on eating and chewing gum during [Doe's] . . . academic and extracurricular classes” and “environments” [See Doc. 94-4 at 56, 57 (504 Grievance Response at 1, 2)]. Doe states that this request extended to L&N's “Genius Hour[s]” [See Doc. 95-11 at 9 (Doe Dep. 32:25-33:4)]. “Genius Hours” are elective periods for students where classes or clubs meet to allow students to pursue their own interests beyond the traditional school curriculum, with the students voting on the “focus” of the hour [See Doc. 94-2 at 8 (Declaration of James Allen (“Allen Decl.”) ¶¶ 31-32)]. These periods are “purposefully scheduled to overlap with lunch to maximize student social engagement while minimizing the impact on the academic schedule” [See id. (Allen Decl. ¶ 33)]. And these hours are a “unique and critical part” of L&N's curriculum [See id. (Allen Decl. ¶ 31)].

On September 3, 2021, L&N denied Plaintiff's requested accommodation but provided various other accommodations [See Doc. 94-4 at 56-57 (504 Grievance Response at 1-2)]. L&N relied in part on the opinion of Daphne Odom, the Knox County Board of Education 504 Coordinator [See Doc. 94-3 at 102-04, 111-12 (Deposition of Daphne Odom (“Odom Dep.”) 17:20-25; 19:19-22:22; 61:24-62:4); see also Doc. 94-4 at 56-57 (504 Grievance Response at 12)]. In addition, the medical documentation that Doe initially provided L&N about her misophonia failed to recommend a ban on eating or drinking in Doe's classrooms [See Doc. 94-3 at 20, 21 (Doe Dep. 155:16-18; 159:2-4)].

One of Doe's parents responded on December 8, 2021, requesting a ban on eating and chewing gum in Doe's “academic classes and extracurricular environments” because “these sounds trigger [Doe's] misophonia” [See Doc. 94-4 at 57 (504 Grievance Response at 2)].

Defendant replied on January 3, 2021, denying the requested accommodation [See id. at 59 (504 Grievance Response at 4)]. L&N Principal James Allen “opted to leave decisions regarding food in the classroom to individual teachers” [Doc. 94-2 at 5 (Allen Decl. ¶ 17)]. Vice Principal Melissa Walsh emailed Doe's teachers stating that the “change we need to make is no gum in the classroom” but L&N “will still allow food and drink, but no parties, potlucks, or candy distribution” [See Doc. 95-28 at 1-2 (August 12, 2021 Walsh Email)]. It is undisputed that in approximately “six out of eight periods,” Doe's teachers “de facto provided” her requested ban on food and chewing gum in class [See Docs. 94-1 at 5, n.7; 95 at 13-14].

During the fall of 2021, KCBOE superintendent Jon Rysewyk created a “Special Education Task Force” [See Doc. 95-12 at 7-8 (Deposition of Jon Rysewyk) (“Rysewyk Dep.”) 24:4-26:17); see also Doc. 95-25 at 1 (Special Education Task Force Recommendation at 1)]. The work of the Special Education Task Force culminated with the Task Force submitting a report and recommendations to Rysewyk regarding how KCBOE could improve special education in Knox County [See Doc. 95-12 at 7-8 (Rysewyk Dep. 24:4-26:17); see also Doc. 95-25 at 1 (Special Education Task Force Recommendation at 1)].

After L&N denied Plaintiff's specific requested accommodation, it offered that Plaintiff “may submit new information” or “appeal the decision” [Doc. 94-4 at 59 (504 Grievance Response at 4)]. Plaintiff did not [See Doc. 95-11 at 8 (Doe Dep. 274:16-18); see also Doc. 95-14 at 39 (Deposition of K.M. (“K.M. Dep.”) 152:25-153:1-10)]. Plaintiff filed suit on February 17, 2022 [See Doc. 1].

After Plaintiff filed suit, two (2) members of KCBOE, Kristi Kristy and Betsy Henderson, posted about the suit on social media [See Doc. 95-19 at 2-6 (Ethics Complaint at 2-6)]. Kristy stated in her post “Hashtag gum gate is really a thing, compliments of the same law firm responsible for the mandatory mask mandate in KCS” [See id. at 6]. Henderson posted “from the lawyers who brought you forced masking, they want to ban chewing in classrooms. I wish I was kidding” [See id.]. Members of the public commented on the social media posts [See id. at 2-6]. A member of the public also filed an ethics complaint with KCBOE about the Board members' posts [See Doc. 95-19 (Ethics Complaint)]. The Full Board dismissed the ethics complaint due to the “strained political status of the community” [See Doc. 95-24 at 12-13 (Knox County Board of Education Regular Session Minutes at 12-13)].

Doe also received disparaging comments from her classmates and the public after she filed suit [See Doc. 95-11 at 28 (Doe Dep. 108:15-109:3); see also Doc. 95-19 at 3-5 (Ethics Complaint at 3-5)]. In each instance where Doe or her parents reported Doe being bullied by a fellow L&N student, Defendant, through members of L&N staff, investigated the matter [See, e.g., Doc. 94-2 at 57-62 (Bullying Investigation Documents) (noting that there is at least one instance where an L&N student passed out chewing gum to determine the identity of the student with the sensitivity to chewing sounds)].

B. Procedural Background

On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging various claims against Defendant under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [Doc. 61]. Count One raises a Section 1983 claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment [See id. at 25]. Count Two is a claim for discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act [See id. at 26]. Count Three is a claim for discrimination and retaliation under the ADA [See id. at 27-28]. Count Four is a claim for harassment under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA [See id. at 29]. Count Five raises a Section 1983 claim for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause [See id. at 30]. And Count Six raises a Section 1983 claim for violation of the “right to bodily integrity” under the Fourteenth Amendment [See id. at 34].

As part of the ongoing litigation, two purported expert witnesses provided evidence regarding Plaintiff's requested accommodation and the reasonableness of her requested accommodation. Dr. Eric Storch opined that “a rule preventing eating and chewing gum in the classroom is the necessary accommodation for Jane Doe” [Doc. 95-2 at 4-5 (Storch Decl. ¶ 11)]. He concluded that “[i]f chewing and eating in the academic setting is medically necessary for another student(s), then use of physical distancing, like a seating chart, may be attempted” [Id.]. Dr. M. Zachary Rosenthal agreed with Dr. Storch and added “[f]or Jane Doe's academic classrooms, an enforced limitation on gun chewing and eating food should be in place” [Doc. 94-4 at 92, 94 (Declaration of M. Zachary Rosenthal (“Rosenthal Decl.”) at 3)]. He also offered that “students must eat lunch or breakfast, of course, so designated areas (a school cafeteria if it exists, or other designated areas in the absence of a school cafeteria) and times or consumption should be enforced” [Id. at 94 (Rosenthal Decl. at 3)].

In contrast, Defendant, through Principal Allen, provided that implementing Doe's requested accommodation would require L&N's “entire master schedule” to change [Doc. 94-2 at 7 (Allen Decl. ¶ 25)]. This would include “either shorten[ing] or eliminat[ing] several classes per semester” to “schedule a total of eight lunch periods in the Commons, the only area large enough to be a ‘designated' eating area” [Id. at 5-9 (Allen Decl. ¶¶ 20-35)]. This is because L&N lacks a cafeteria, and the largest room in the building could only hold...