Henson v. Baker School District No. 12 Board of Trustees
Filing
8
ORDER denying 4 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 7/31/2012. (EMA)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
TYLER HENSON,
Case No. CV-12-11-BLG-RFC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO DISMISS
vs.
BAKER SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.
12 BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
Defendant.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Tyler Henderson brings this action against Baker School District
alleging Baker High School discriminated against him on account of his
disabilities in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29
U.S.C. § 729 (“Section 504”). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits
discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals on the basis of handicap by
any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
The School District has moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that the
statute of limitations has expired, as Henderson was graduated from Baker High
1
School in 2010 and did not file suit until January of 2012. The facts material to
this motion are undisputed. Its resolution depends solely on which Montana-law
limitations period is applicable to a § 504 claim. If the three-year period for
“commencement of an action upon a liability not founded upon an instrument in
writing” is applicable, this suit is timely. If the 180-day period for discrimination
claims applies, then this case must be dismissed. Because the three-year period is
applicable, the School District’s motion must be denied.
II.
ANALYSIS
Since the facts are undisputed and the issue can be resolved by relying
solely on the well-pleaded facts alleged in the Complaint, accepted as true and
viewed in the light most favorable to Henson, this statute of limitations issue can
properly be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) Fed.R.Civ.P. motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Sternhagen v. Dow Co., 711
F.Supp. 1027, 1029 n.1 (D. Mont. 1989). Since § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
does not specify a statute of limitations, courts must apply the most analogous
limitations period provided by Montana law. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261,
266-67 (1985)(since a § 1983 claim is most analogous to a tort action for personal
injury, that limitations period applies to § 1983 claims). In doing so, this Court
must “characterize the essence of the claim ... and decide which state statute
2
provides the most appropriate limiting principle.” Id. at 268.
There are no cases discussing what limitations period is most appropriate
for § 504 claim under Montana law. But the large majority of courts have applied
the forum state’s limitations period for personal injury claims. See Jaiyeola v.
District of Columbia, 40 A.3d 356, 364 (D.C. 2012), citing Scott Smith, What
statute of limitations applies in actions under § 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(29 U.S.C.A. § 794), 120 A.L.R. Fed 621 (originally published 1994, updated
weekly by Westlaw). Henson urges the Court to follow the majority trend and
apply Montana’s three-year personal injury limitations period codified at Mont.
Code Ann. § 27-2-204(1).
Henson also notes that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has applied
California’s personal injury limitations period to § 504 claims. Douglas v.
California Dept. Of Youth Authority, 271 F.3d 812, 813, n. 11 (9th Cir. 2001),
abrogated on other grounds by Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S.
101 (2002); Johnson v. Dept. of Army and Air Force, 465 Fed.Appx. 644, 645 (9th
Cir. 2012)(unpublished)(citing Douglas). But the School District persuasively
counters that the Douglas court made no attempt to characterize the essence of the
claim and determine which state limitations period provided the most appropriate
limiting principle as required by Wilson, but rather applied California’s one-year
3
limitations period for personal injury actions because the parties agreed to its
application. 271 F.3d at 821, n. 11; See also Daviton v. Columbia/HCA
Healthcare Corp., 241 F.3d 1131, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that Ninth
Circuit had not yet held that California’s personal injury statute of limitations
applies to section 504 claims, other circuits have held that the forum state's
personal injury limitations period applies to such a claim; and since it was
conceded that the one-year personal injury limitations period applied, the issue
was not addressed). Similarly, Johnson merely cites Douglas for the proposition
that California’s one-year limitations period for personal injury actions is
applicable to § 504 claims and also made no attempt at characterizing the essence
of the claim. 465 Fed.Appx. at 645.
The gravamen of Henson’s Complaint is discrimination on the basis of his
disability. The School District therefore argues that the 180-day period for filing a
disability discrimination claim is applicable. Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501(4).1
Indeed, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit have applied anti-disability discrimination statute limitations
periods to § 504 claims rather personal injury limitations periods. Jaiyeola v.
1
A discrimination complaint must be filed within 300 days if an internal grievance
procedure is followed. Mont. Code Ann. § 49-2-501(4)(b).
4
District of Columbia, 40 A.3d 356 (D.C. 2012) (applying one-year limitations
period from D.C.’s Human Rights Act); J.S. ex rel. Duck v. Isle of Wight County
School Bd., 402 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2005), citing Wolsky v. Medical College of
Hampton Roads, 1 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 1993) (applying one-year limitations period
from Virginia Rights of Persons With Disability’s Act); and McCullough v.
Branch Banking & Trust Company, 35 F.3d 127 (4th Cir. 1994)(applying 180-day
limitations period from North Carolina’s Handicapped Persons Protection Act).
But even though the reasoning of these non-binding cases is persuasive and
Montana’s anti-discrimination cause of action is as analogous to a § 504 claim as
the claim at issue in Jaiyeola, the 180-day period is not a statute of limitations.
Section § 49-2-501(4) places a limit on when an aggrieved party must file an
administrative claim with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry. Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act contains no such requirement.
Moreover, § 27-2-204(1) plainly provides that the “period prescribed for the
commencement of an action upon a liability not founded upon an instrument in
writing is within 3 years.” Finally, it cannot be ignored that the cases cited by the
School District are in the minority and the majority of courts that have addressed
the issue have applied tort limitations periods because the Rehabilitation Act is an
anti-discrimination statute and that, as courts have recognized in borrowing state
5
statutes of limitations in actions under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination claims are essentially
personal injury claims. Jaiyeola, 40 A.3d at 364-65.
For those reasons, the Court concludes that the three-year limitations period
found at Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-204(1) is the applicable statute of limitations.
III.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the School District’s Motion to Dismiss
(doc. 4) is DENIED.
Dated this 31st day of July, 2012.
/s/ Richard F. Cebull______
Richard F. Cebull
United States District Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?