CHICAGO (LN) — U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on Tuesday denied Community High School District No. 155's motion for summary judgment brought by Lindsay Ross and her daughter, E.P., ruling that genuine disputes of material fact preclude dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Illinois Human Rights Act.
E.P., a high school student born with pulmonary aplasia, cardiac dextroposition, and other serious medical conditions, alleged that District 155 effectively excluded her from two art classes and a freshman seminar by refusing to provide reasonable accommodations, including social distancing and proper equipment for remote learning.
The court held that the District's refusal to allow E.P. to attend the Freshman Seminar with social distancing, despite her need for it, created a factual dispute over whether the school denied her meaningful access to the program. The court also noted that the V-Go robot offered as an alternative had functionality issues and might not have provided the socio-emotional benefits of in-person interaction.
Regarding E.P.'s removal from the Visual Art and Technology course, the court held that the District failed to engage interactive process. Judge Pallmeyer highlighted testimony from Special Education Divisional Leader Dona Taylor that she never spoke with the family about the course or makeup work, a unilateral decision that a jury could find discriminatory.
The lawsuit also survives on claims of retaliation. The court ruled that a reasonable juror could find that seating E.P. next to a trash can in Studio Art, after the mother complained about her treatment, was an adverse action intended to dissuade further complaints. Additionally, the court found a factual dispute over whether a district administrator's threat to report the mother to child protective services constituted retaliation for her advocacy.
The District had argued that E.P. was provided reasonable accommodations and that her exclusion from classes was due to her falling behind in coursework, not her disability. The court rejected this, noting that E.P.'s falling behind was directly linked to her medical conditions and the District's failure to provide necessary equipment and makeup opportunities.
The case will now proceed to trial on the remaining claims of disability discrimination and retaliation against the school district.