T.O. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist.

33 Citing cases

  1. Farshid v. Allen Indep. Sch. Dist.

    688 F. Supp. 3d 391 (E.D. Tex. 2023)

    That said, so long as the state provides adequate civil or criminal remedies, "a public school student cannot state a claim for denial of substantive due process through excessive corporal punishment." T.O. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 2 F.4th 407, 414 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 874 (5th Cir. 2000)). Of course, substantive due process claims can go forward when the complained-of conduct is "arbitrary, capricious, or wholly unrelated to the legitimate state goal of maintaining an atmosphere conducive to learning."

  2. Farshid v. Allen Indep. Sch. Dist.

    No. 23-40532 (5th Cir. Jun. 21, 2024)

    T.O. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 2 F.4th 407, 414 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 672 (1977)). However, in this circuit, "injuries sustained incidentally to corporal punishment, irrespective of the severity of these injuries or the sensitivity of the student, do not implicate the due process clause if the forum state affords adequate post-punishment civil or criminal remedies for the student to vindicate legal transgressions."

  3. J.W. v. Paley

    81 F.4th 440 (5th Cir. 2023)   Cited 17 times

    Section 504 requires that the plaintiff's disability be the "sole reason" for the exclusion or denial of benefits, but the ADA's standard is less stringent.T.O. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 2 F.4th 407, 417 (5th Cir. 2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 391 F.3d 669, 671-72 (5th Cir. 2004)). Bennett-Nelson v. La. Bd. of Regents, 431 F.3d 448, 454 (5th Cir. 2005)

  4. S.B. v. Jefferson Par. Sch. Bd.

    No. 22-30139 (5th Cir. May. 30, 2023)   Cited 3 times

    In T.O. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., we affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' ADA and § 504 claims after a teacher grabbed a disabled student trying to re-enter a classroom by the neck, threw him to the floor, and held him in a chokehold for several minutes. 2 F.4th 407, 412-18 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 2811 (2022), reh'gdenied, 143 S.Ct. 60 (2022). During the incident, the teacher yelled at the student that he "had hit the wrong one" and "needed to keep his hands to himself."

  5. Bryant v. Dayton Indep. Sch. Dist.

    Civil Action H-21-1547 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2021)   Cited 3 times

    “Both the ADA and § 504 [of the Rehabilitation Act] generally prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities. T.O. v. Fort BendIndep. Sch. Dist., 2 F.4th 407, 416-17 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). “Claims brought under § 504 or the ADA, or both, are subject to the same analysis, ” because the “only material difference between the two provisions lies in their respective causation requirements.”

  6. Montgomery v. Dist. of Columbia

    Civil Action 18-1928 (JDB) (D.D.C. May. 23, 2022)

    There have also been recent cases reaching the opposite conclusion. E.g., T.O. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 2 F.4th 407, 417 (5th Cir. 2021); A.V. ex rel. Hanson v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, Civ. A. No. 21-cv-0704-WJM-SKC, 2022 WL 504138, at *9 (D. Colo. Feb. 18, 2022)

  7. Bye v. MGM Resorts Int'l

    CIVIL 1:20cv3-HSO-RHWR (S.D. Miss. Dec. 16, 2021)

    “Whether good cause exists depends on (1) the explanation for the failure to timely move for leave to amend; (2) the importance of the amendment; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the amendment; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.” T.O. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch.Dist., 2 F.4th 407, 418 (5th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). If a plaintiff can demonstrate good cause, then the more liberal standard of Rule 15(a) applies to the request to amend.

  8. Wood v. Bexar Cnty.

    No. 22-50888 (5th Cir. May. 19, 2023)   Cited 3 times

    Instead, we "accept[] all well-pleaded facts as true and draw[] all inferences in favor of the plaintiff." T.O. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 2 F.4th 407, 413 (5th Cir. 2021).

  9. J.L. v. Jefferson Par. Sch. Bd.

    No. 23-1532 (E.D. La. Dec. 11, 2023)

    For example, in T.O. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., the Fifth Circuit addressed whether a district court had correctly dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, brought under Title II and Section 504, based on a teacher having beaten and choked their disabled child. 2 F.4th 407, 412 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 2811 (2022), reh'g denied, 143 S.Ct. 60 (2022). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of those claims, finding the factual allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint did not permit the inference that the child was discriminated against because of his disability.

  10. Nevarez v. Nevarez

    No. EP-22-CV-442-DCG-MAT (W.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2023)

    “When, however, a party seeks to amend pleadings in a fashion that would alter a deadline imposed by a scheduling order, Rule 15 is superseded by Rule 16, which requires good cause and the judge's consent for modification.” T.O. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., 2 F.4th 407, 418 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4)). To show good cause, “[a] party is required ‘to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party needing the extension.'”