United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jeffrey T. Gilbert Magistrate Judge.
H.P. ("Plaintiff) has sued Defendant Naperville
Community Unit School District 203 ("Defendant") by
and through her father, W.P. This matter is now before the
Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 36] and
Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 42],
For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss [ECF No. 36] is granted in part and denied in part,
and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No.
42] is denied as moot.
following facts are taken from Plaintiffs complaint. All
well-pled allegations are taken as true for the purposes of
the motion to dismiss now before the Court, See Anicich
v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 852 F.3d 643, 648 (7th Cir.
2017), as amended (Ayr, 13, 2017).
lived in Naperville, Illinois, between 2008 and early 2016
and attended Naperville Central High School
("NCHS") in District 203. Complaint for Declaratory
and Injunctive Relief ("Complaint"), [ECF No. 1],
¶¶4, 11, 16. In 2008, Plaintiff s parents divorced.
Id. ¶ 10. After the divorce, Plaintiff began to
suffer from anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and
seizures. Id. ¶ 12. In August 2009, Plaintiff
was diagnosed with epilepsy and prescribed medication to
control her seizures. Id. ¶ 13. In late 2013
and early 2014, Plaintiff received inpatient treatment for
school avoidance issues, anxiety, depression, and an
obsessive-compulsive disorder. Id. ¶ 15. At
that time, Plaintiff was prescribed additional medication to
treat her anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders.
Id. Throughout 2014, 2015, and part of 2016,
Plaintiffs mother, who suffered from mental health problems
of her own, attempted suicide multiple times and was
hospitalized. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. In May 2016,
Plaintiffs mother committed suicide. Id. ¶ 21.
Plaintiff alleges she was devastated by this traumatic event.
Id. ¶ 22.
her time in school, Plaintiffs anxiety, stress, and
depression adversely impacted her ability to learn.
Id. ¶ 32. On an unspecified date, Defendant
created an Individual Education Plan ("IEP") for
Plaintiff to provide her with special education classes and
services. Id. ¶ 14. As the mental health of
Plaintiff s mother deteriorated in 2015 and 2016, Plaintiffs
father become more active in managing Plaintiffs education
and home environment. Id. ¶ 18. In January
2015, Defendant conducted an IEP conference with Plaintiff
and her father. Id. ¶ 19. During the
conference, Plaintiff and her father decided Plaintiff should
enroll in general education classes. Id. Defendant
counseled them against this course of action and told
Plaintiff that she would no longer be eligible for special
education classes and services. Id. Plaintiff and
her father still decided she did not need an IEP, and no
further IEP conferences were held. Id.
spent her first two years in high school, during which she
lived in District 203, at NCHS. Id. ¶ 16. After
her mother died, Plaintiff moved to her father's home in
Hidden Lake, which is a subdivision in Lisle, Illinois.
Id. ¶¶ 23-24. Hidden Lake is in Woodridge
School District 68 ("District 68") and Community
High School District 99 ("District 99").
Id. ¶ 25. Although Plaintiff no longer lived in
District 203, she attended NCHS during her junior year, where
she took AP classes, became a member and officer of Future
Farmers of America, and earned a teaching assistant position
for her senior year. Id. ¶¶ 29, 30;
see also Id. ¶ 32. When Plaintiff asked
Defendant if she could enroll in NCHS for her senior year,
Defendant refused based on its alleged policy of denying all
out-of-district enrollments without consideration of a
student's individual circumstances ("Out-of-District
Enrollment Policy"). Id. ¶¶ 33, 34.
Plaintiffs father requested an accommodation for Plaintiff
given her circumstances, but Defendant persisted in its
position. Id. ¶ 35.
residents of Hidden Lake have spent more than a year trying
to have Hidden Lake detached from Districts 68 and 99 and
attached to District 203. Id. ¶ 27. Plaintiffs
home in Hidden Lake is about 2 miles closer to NCHS than to a
high school in District 99. Id. ¶ 28. Also,
school buses serving Hidden Lake must travel through a
separate subdivision that is a part of District 203 in order
to get between Hidden Lake and the schools in Districts 68
and 99. Id. ¶ 26. To date, the residents of
Hidden Lake have not been successful in their attempts to
have Hidden Lake detached from Districts 68 and 99 and
attached to District 203. Id. ¶ 27.
21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a three-count Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. In Count I, Plaintiff
alleges claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et
seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the
"Rehabilitation Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 701 et
seq. Id. ¶¶ 43-48, p. 9-10. In Count II,
Plaintiff alleges the Illinois Constitution requires that
Hidden Lake be detached from Districts 68 and 99 and seeks
"a Declaratory Judgment that, as a matter of law, Hidden
Lake must be attached to District 203, [and] therefore,
[Plaintiff] cannot be denied enrollment in" District
203. Id. ¶ 56. Finally, Count Ill. does not set
forth an independent legal claim, but, rather, only requests
the relief of a preliminary injunction based on the
allegations in Counts I and II. Id. ¶¶
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain
"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief" Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) "tests the sufficiency of the complaint."
Fuesting v. Uline, Inc., 30 F.Supp.3d 739, 741 (N.D.
Ill. 2014). A complaint will survive this test "if,
after the court disregards any portions that are no more than
conclusions, [the complaint] contains sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Schumacher, 844 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009))
(internal quotation marks omitted). A complaint must contain
more than bare and conclusory allegations and must do more
than create a sheer possibility that a defendant acted
unlawfully. Diedrich v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
839 F.3d 583, 589 (7th Cir. 2016); Olson v. Champaign
Cty., Ill. 784 F.3d 1093, 1099 (7th Cir. 2015). But the
"plausibility standard is not akin to a probability
requirement." Diedrich, 839 F.3d at 589
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678) (internal quotation
marks omitted). "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." Bible v,
United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 799 F.3d 633, 639
(7th Cir.), reh g denied, 807 F.3d 839 (7th Cir.
2015) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). When
evaluating a motion to dismiss, a court must draw all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Owens v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 832 F.3d 726,
730 (7th Cir. 2016).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is governed by
the plausibility standard that applies to a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Silha
v. ACT, Inc., 807 F.3d 169, 174 (7th Cir. 2015), When a
defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff
"the burden of establishing that the jurisdictional
requirements have been met." Ctr. for Dermatology
& Skin Cancer, Ltd. v. Burwell, 770 F.3d 586, 588-89
(7th Cir. 2014).
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
has moved to dismiss each count in Plaintiffs Complaint.
Count I, Plaintiff alleges Defendant has violated Title II of
the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. A
violation of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act may be proven
by showing disparate treatment, failure to provide a
reasonable accommodation, or disparate impact. Washington v.
Indiana High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc., 181 F.3d
840, 847 (7th Cir. 1999). The last two types of proof are at
issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs Response to Defendant
Naperville Community Unit School District #203's Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint ("Plaintiffs
Response"), [ECF No. 44], at 10. Plaintiff alleges
Defendant has failed to provide her with a reasonable
accommodation because it refuses to waive its Out-of-District
Enrollment Policy so that she can attend NCHS during her
senior year of high school. Id; Complaint, [ECF No.
1], ¶¶ 33-39, 41, 42-48, p. 9-10, To prevail on
this claim, Plaintiff will have to show that "she is a
qualified individual with a disability and that [Defendant]
was aware of her disability yet failed to provide her with a
reasonable accommodation." Klene v. Trustees of
Indiana Univ., 413 Fed.Appx. 919, 920 (7th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff also alleges the Out-of-District Enrollment Policy
has a disparate impact on disabled students. Plaintiffs
Response, [ECF No. 44], at 10; Complaint, [ECF No. 1], 40-48,
p. 9-10. To prevail on this claim, Plaintiff will have to
show the Policy "fall[s] more harshly on one group than
another and cannot be justified by [a nondiscriminatory]
necessity." Swan v. Bd. of Educ. of City of
Chicago, 2013 WL 4401439, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15,
2013) (quoting Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S.
44, 52 (2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendant
argues Plaintiff has not plausibly facts to support either
first contends Plaintiff "has not established that she
is disabled." Memorandum in Support of Defendant
Naperville Community Unit School District #203's Motion
to Dismiss ("Defendant's Brief), [ECF No. 37], at 6.
"A disability is 'a physical or mental impairment
that substantially limits one or more major life
activities."' Khan v. Midwestern Univ., 147
F.Supp.3d 718, 722 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (quoting 42 U.S.C. §
12102(1)(A)). A major life activity is "an activity of
central importance to daily life, " such as "caring
for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing,
hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working."
Brettkr v. Purdue Univ.,408 F.Supp.2d 640, 663
(N.D. Ind. 2006) (quoting Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky,
Inc. v. Williams,534 U.S. 184, 197 (2002); 45 C.F.R.
§ 84.3(j)(2)(ii)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The substantial limitation standard is not demanding and is
satisfied if an individual is "significantly restricted