By Geneva Englebrecht, Associate
and Adam Newman, Partner
Cerritos Office
On February 21, 2012, the United State Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the Peninsula School District (“District”) in the state of Washington. The District sought review of a Ninth Circuit decision from July 2011. The case stems from a 2005 civil suit filed against the District by a student indentified as D.P., seeking relief under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act alleging violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as violations of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”). In response to the civil filing, the District argued that D.P. had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not going through the due process hearing and appeals procedures connected to the due process hearing. The lower federal court agreed with the District and dismissed the lawsuit. In a somewhat surprising move, the Ninth Circuit reversed.
Generally, the IDEA requires that before filing a civil action seeking relief that is also available under the IDEA, a student must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the lower courts should look at the relief sought rather than the injury alleged. This position is in stark contrast to the Ninth Circuit’s previous rulings which placed the focus on the injury alleged, i.e. usually a denial of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). The Ninth Circuit specifically noted that exhaustion is required when the parent seeks: 1) an IDEA remedy, such as tuition reimbursement; 2) a change in the student’s program or placement; or 3) the enforcement of rights arising from a denial of FAPE. However, depending on the type of relief sought, some relief may fall outside the exhaustion rule, thereby allowing pursuit of a lawsuit side by side or in lieu of a due process hearing. Not all Courts of Appeal across the country accept the Ninth Circuit’s latest turnabout, which makes all the more puzzling the Supreme Court’s actions, since one purpose of Supreme Court review is to reconcile different interpretations of federal law by different Circuit Courts in the United States, as is the case here.
The Supreme Court’s decision to decline to hear the District’s appeal may leave educational agencies with a sense of trepidation. It is plausible that skillfully drafted pleadings may allow for students to avoid the IDEA’s exhaustion requirements and proceed directly to civil court. While it is too soon to fully appreciate the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision, it is clear that the new “relief-centered” approach to the IDEA’s exhaustion requirements will alter the way lower courts in the Ninth Circuit interpret the exhaustion requirements of the IDEA, at least in the short run. Keep in mind however, that in most cases, parents of special education students are not interested in suing the school district or county office of education, rather, preferring the less complicated and swifter administrative forum for resolution.
