A.B.F. attended The St. Paul’s School for Girls (“SPSG”), a private Episcopal day school in Maryland. Shortly after enrolling as a freshman in 2017, A.B.F.’s parents informed the School that she had an anxiety disorder and learning disability, and the School implemented accommodations through an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”).
Although SPSG is a private school, the Court assumed for purposes of the litigation that it was subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act because it had accepted a federal Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court noted that any obligations arising from receipt of federal financial assistance would exist only during the period in which the School received those funds.
According to the complaint, A.B.F.’s junior year was marked by a deteriorating relationship with a classmate, K.P., and several other students. A.B.F. and her parents alleged that the students engaged in a pattern of bullying that included mimicking her gait and mannerisms, making comments about her weight, exchanging malicious text messages, excluding her from social activities, and otherwise targeting her because of her social anxiety and disability.
A.B.F.’s parents complained to the School about the alleged bullying, and in response, the School conducted an investigation. The investigation found insufficient evidence to substantiate the bullying allegations. The parents strongly disagreed with that conclusion and alleged that the investigation was flawed because certain students were not interviewed until after the investigation was supposedly completed.
Following the School’s findings, A.B.F.’s parents requested modifications to her IEP, explaining that the alleged bullying targeted her because of her known disability and asking that the accused students be removed from her classes to prevent retaliation. Rather than moving the accused students, the School proposed moving A.B.F. to different classes.
The relationship between the family and the School continued to deteriorate. The parents alleged that School officials, the School’s attorney, and others minimized their concerns by characterizing the situation as ordinary “social dynamics” rather than bullying. They further alleged that the School created a hostile educational environment by making them feel unwelcome at school events, excluding A.B.F.’s mother from participating in a school book sale, and failing to protect A.B.F. from further mistreatment.
Although A.B.F. ultimately graduated from SPSG in 2021, the family alleged that the bullying and the School’s response caused her to miss more than twenty days of school, negatively affected her academic performance, and deprived her of leadership opportunities.
The family filed suit asserting claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, along with numerous state law claims. Their federal claims alleged that the School retaliated against them after they requested disability-related accommodations and that the School created a retaliatory hostile environment.
The Court dismissed both federal claims. With respect to retaliation, the Court acknowledged that requesting modifications to A.B.F.’s IEP constituted protected activity under the Rehabilitation Act. However, the Court found that the alleged retaliatory conduct did not rise to the level of a materially adverse action. For example, statements by the School’s attorney that A.B.F.’s parents were interfering with the “healing” of the accused students, and statements that the bullying allegations lacked merit, were viewed as disagreements regarding the dispute rather than actionable retaliation.
The Court also rejected the family’s argument that the School’s handling of the bullying complaints amounted to deliberate indifference to pervasive, severe disability-based harassment under Section 504. The Court emphasized that the School investigated the complaints, communicated its findings, and attempted to separate A.B.F. from the students involved by moving her to different classes. While the family strongly disagreed with the adequacy and conclusions of the investigation, the Court explained that disagreement with an investigation’s outcome did not establish disability discrimination or deliberate indifference.
The Court similarly dismissed the hostile educational environment claim, concluding that allegations that the family felt unwelcome at school events or that A.B.F.’s mother was excluded from participating in a school activity did not constitute the type of severe or pervasive retaliatory harassment required under the Rehabilitation Act.
Having dismissed the federal claims, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, including breach of contract, defamation, negligent supervision, and tortious interference claims, leaving those issues for state courts to resolve if the family chose to pursue them further.
Bennett v. St. Paul’s Sch., Inc. (D.Md. May 8, 2026) 2026 WL 1261953.
Note: This case serves as a reminder that private schools that accept certain forms of federal financial assistance may become subject to Section 504 obligations, even if they otherwise would not be covered. Careful documentation of investigations and responsive measures are particularly important where schools are navigating allegations of peer-on-peer bullying.