Case Explained: DEBORAH LAUBSCHER ROBERT LAUBSCHER as surviving parents of Dani Laubscher v. GWINNETT COUNTY

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-07-01 Docket: 1:24-cv-01891-LMM The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Laubschers’ complaint against Gwinnett County for failure to state a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court held that because the plaintiffs sought compensatory damages against a public entity, they were required to plead and prove that the county engaged in intentional discrimination by demonstrating “deliberate indifference” on the part of policymakers with substantial supervisory authority. The court applied the standard derived from *Connick v. Thompson* and § 1983 failure-to-train jurisprudence, ruling that to establish deliberate indifference regarding a public entity’s policies or training programs, plaintiffs must allege a pattern of prior similar incidents involving disability discrimination that would have provided policymakers with actual knowledge of the violation. The court found the complaint insufficient because it failed to allege any prior incidents in Gwinnett County where police or EMT responses to mental health emergencies resulted in ADA violations similar to the shooting of Dani Laubscher. The court rejected the argument that the mere existence of a discriminatory policy constituted intentional discrimination before the specific incident occurred, noting that the duty to accommodate is triggered only when a specific demand for accommodation is made and the entity has actual knowledge of the individual’s needs. As a practical consequence, the plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed without reaching the merits of whether the proposed accommodations were reasonable or if the county’s policies fundamentally altered its services. The dismissal stands, preventing the Laubschers from pursuing compensatory damages based on the alleged policy failures. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.