United States District Court,E.D. Missouri,Southeastern Division.Jamie Kaufmann WOODS, et al., Plaintiffs,v.Bob WILLS, et al., Defendants.
No. 1:03-CV-105 CAS.
Nov. 18, 2005.
Students and their parents broughtaction against boarding school operators, allegingviolations of the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),and state law claims of assault, battery, false im-prisonment, negligence, negligence in providingmedical treatment, intentional infliction of emotion-al distress, conversion, and fraud. The defendantsmoved for summary judgment.
The District Court, Shaw, J., held that:(1)monetary damages are unavailable under TitleIII of ADA;(2)students were not employees of boarding schoolfor purposes of FLSA;(3)students were unable to present a submissiblecase of intentional infliction of emotional distress;(4)students could not establish false imprisonmentclaims against boarding school under Missouri lawbecause students were minors while enrolled andtheir parents consented to their enrollment;(5)students failed to make a submissible case of battery based on defendants surreptitious adminis-tration of antipsychotic drugs to them;(6)there was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury questions of whether any of the boardingschool operators breached their duty under Mis-souri law to provide medical assistance to studentsin need of medical treatment and whether suchbreach resulted in damages; and(7)parents could not establish a submissible causeof fraud against boarding school defendants basedon fraudulent statements made by unidentifiedspeakers.Motion granted in part and denied in part as to stu-dent plaintiffs; motion granted as to parentplaintiffs.West Headnotes
Federal Civil Procedure 170A 2547.1
170AFederal Civil Procedure170AXVIIJudgment170AXVII(C)Summary Judgment
170AXVII(C)3Proceedings170Ak2547Hearing andDetermina-tion170Ak2547.1k. In General.MostCited CasesIn opposing motion for summary judgment, stu-dents and parents would be deemed have admittedmovants' statements of material fact except to theextent that their affidavits served to raise a genuineissue of material fact where students and parents vi-olated local rule by failing to include in their re-sponses specific references to portions of the re-cord, where available, upon which they relied.U.S.Dist.Ct.Rules D.Mo., Rule 4.01(E).
78Civil Rights78IRights Protected and Discrimination Prohib-ited in General78k1043Public Accommodations
78k1044k. In General.Most Cited Cases
A person alleging discrimination under Title III of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) must showthat (1) she is disabled within the meaning of theADA, (2) the defendant is a private entity thatowns, leases, or operates a place of public accom-modation, (3) the defendant took adverse actionagainst the plaintiff based upon her disability, and(4) the defendant failed to make reasonable modi-fications that would accommodate the plaintiff'sFOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1400 F.Supp.2d 1145, 205 Ed. Law Rep. 350
(Cite as: 400 F.Supp.2d 1145)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.