That it alleged retaliatory act was initially mentioned throughout the plaintiffs’ grievance and you can was also acquiesced by J.C. in her own deposition. (D.Age. twenty-five, within 9; D.E. step three0-step three, on 18-21.) SCBE argues your choice to not use a college-greater peanut prohibit was not retaliatory due to the fact SCBE took multiple safety measures so you can limit A.C.is why peanut coverage, in addition to performing an effective peanut-totally free class room; notifying the parents away from An effective.C.’s classmates regarding A beneficial.C.is the reason allergic reaction therefore the peanut-100 % free class plan; overseeing the food room to be sure A beneficial.C. failed to sit close to a student sipping peanut circumstances; and having cafeteria staff wipe off all of the meal dining tables prior to A great.C.is the reason group came into eat dinner. (D.Elizabeth. 30-step one, at the twenty-seven.) The newest plaintiffs did not respond to SCBE’s objections with this material within their reaction and you will appeared to features decrease the fresh new disagreement altogether. The court discovers the facts was undisputed and this SCBE’s refusal so you can prohibit peanut things college or university-large was not retaliatory because the a point of legislation. SCBE is permitted summation judgment on this so-called retaliatory act and claim.
Plaintiffs together with say that SCBE’s believe out-of homebound qualities to own Good.C. was a beneficial retaliatory act. (D.E. 38-step 1, in the 14.) Homebound attributes was in fact originally recommended by the Brownish-Woods, new director out-of matched college fitness, and later supported by Burton, the SCBE superintendent. (D.Elizabeth. 35-fifteen, in the 29-32; D.Elizabeth. 36-step 1, during the step one-2.) Brown-Woods up coming advised assistant principal McClellan to arrange A good.C. read more