N.L. ex rel. Mrs. C. v. Knox County Schools, 01-5551.

• Citation: 315 F.3d 688
• Decision Date: 16 January 2003
• Docket Number: No. 01-5551.,01-5551.
• Parties: N.L., a minor, by her mother, MS. C., as next friend, and Ms. C., individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KNOX COUNTY SCHOOLS; Charles Lindsey, Superintendent of Knox County Schools, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

315 F.3d 688

N.L., a minor, by her mother, MS. C., as next friend, and Ms. C., individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KNOX COUNTY SCHOOLS; Charles Lindsey, Superintendent of Knox County Schools, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 01-5551.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued September 12, 2002.

Decided and Filed January 16, 2003.

Brenda McGee (briefed), Knoxville, TN, Dean Hill Rivkin (argued and briefed), Knoxville, TN, for Appellees.

Charles L. Weatherly, Wendy A. Jacobs (briefed), The Weatherly Law Firm, Atlanta, GA, Susan E. Crabtree (briefed), Knox County Law Department, Knoxville, TN, for Appellants.

Before: NORRIS and CLAY, Circuit Judges; O'MEARA, District Judge.^*

OPINION

ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge.

This case concerns two federal statutes promoting the access of students with disabilities to educational opportunities, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1994), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. (1994). Defendants are the Knox County, Tennessee schools and school superintendent Charles Lindsey (collectively, the "school system"). Plaintiffs are minor child N.L. and her mother, Ms. C., as next friend.

On January 11, 1999, IDEA and section 504 evaluation teams convened by the school system determined that N.L. was ineligible for special assistance under either statute. Ms. C. was the sole dissenting member of both teams. After N.L. was determined ineligible, Ms. C. requested a due process hearing for her daughter under the IDEA. At the conclusion of the due process hearing, the administrative law judge affirmed the finding of the IDEA team. Ms. C. then appealed the administrative decision to the district court. The district court agreed to hear both the IDEA and section 504 claims, having jurisdiction over the IDEA claims pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A) & (3)(A) and over the section 504 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. After reviewing the evidence, the district court declined to rule on the merits of the case, but instead found that procedural errors occurred during the school-level eligibility determination process under both statutes. The district court's final order required the school system to reconvene evaluation teams to reconsider N.L.'s eligibility under both statutes. The school system appeals from this remand. We now reverse the district court's decision.

I

The purpose of the IDEA is to guarantee children with disabilities access to a free appropriate public education. See 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). Under the IDEA, a school system conducts an initial evaluation to determine if a child qualifies for special education or related services in the form of an Individualized Education Program ("IEP"). See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A). To conduct its evaluation, the school sets up an Individualized Education Program Team ("IEP Team") comprised of the parents, at least one teacher of the child, a special education teacher, a representative of the local education department, "an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of the evaluation results," and any other individuals with special expertise. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B). Tennessee regulations require schools first to create an evaluation team composed of experts to develop an "assessment report" which is then presented at the IEP Team meeting. See Tenn. Rule 0520-1-9.01(4) a-b (September 1999). If the IEP Team fails to certify a student for an IEP, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f) permits the parent to request a due process hearing. The hearing must abide by certain procedural safeguards, and the IDEA gives parents the right to counsel and outside experts. See generally 20 U.S.C. § 1415.

The purpose of section 504 is to ensure that disabled individuals have the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service of any program receiving federal financial assistance. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Programs receiving federal financial assistance include public schools. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(2)(B).

There can be no doubt that the child at issue here, N.L., had a long history of behavioral and scholastic problems. In 1993, when N.L. was seven years old and in the second grade, she was certified as disabled under the IDEA as "Health Impaired" based on a diagnosis of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"). N.L.'s behavior included biting, kicking, disrespect toward adults, and the use of vulgar language. As required by the IDEA, the school developed an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") and a behavior management plan. Achievement test scores suggest N.L. made decent educational progress over the next few years. At the beginning of her fifth-grade year in 1996, N.L. began the recertification process under the IDEA. In January 1997, an IEP Team meeting decertified N.L. as Health Impaired. Over the previous two years, she had received average to above average grades in most areas measured.

The next school year, the family moved to Baltimore, Maryland where N.L. attended the sixth grade for one semester. Some of N.L.'s grades that semester were failing. Her school report from Baltimore indicated that her "conduct interferes with [her] learning."

In January 1998, N.L. returned to the Knox County school system and problems persisted. A parent-teacher conference was held because N.L.'s behavior was "getting in way of academic progress." Her grades were a low C-average during the spring semester. According her mother, N.L. attended summer school but was dismissed because of behavioral problems.

By the end of October of her seventh grade year, N.L. received nineteen days of in-school suspension and two days of out-of-school suspension as punishments.¹ Ms. C. testified that she met with the school's principal at this time and requested that N.L. be evaluated and strategies set up to help her, but the principal responded that N.L.'s behavior was not affecting her academic performance. Ms. C. took N.L. to a mental health clinic, where a doctor prescribed Ritalin.

Despite medication, N.L.'s behavior problems continued. Soon after Ms. C.'s meeting with the principal, N.L. was accused of slapping a teacher. In response, the school began proceedings to consider long-term expulsion (N.L. was not ultimately expelled). The school also concluded that an evaluation by an IEP Team was necessary.

The initial school-appointed evaluation team was comprised of Sandra Machleit, a school psychologist, Dr. Michael Greer, a private psychiatrist, Dr. Vance Sherwood, a private psychologist, and Suzanne Hartsell, a social worker. Prior to the full IEP Team meeting, these experts conducted evaluations of N.L., interviewed her mother, and wrote an assessment report as specified by Tennessee regulations. See Tenn. Rule 0520-1-9.01(4) a-b (September 1999). The report found that N.L. did not meet the criteria to qualify as a disabled student under the IDEA. The experts agreed that N.L. had ADHD but concluded that N.L.'s behavioral problems were volitional and not caused by her disability. (They noted that N.L. could control her behavior under many circumstances and that behavioral problems are not usually associated with ADHD.)

The IEP Team meeting was held on January 11, 1999, at which the evaluators and Ms. C. were present, as well as the principal, a special education consultant, a special education supervisor, and one of N.L.'s teachers. With the exception of Ms. C., the IEP Team concluded that N.L. was not eligible for special education under the IDEA. Ms. C. was an active participant in these meetings and not only registered her disagreement with the IEP Team's conclusion but also requested alterations to the reports. According to Ms. C., following the IEP Team meeting school personnel composed largely of the same group held a section 504 meeting that lasted about five minutes. N.L., again over Ms. C.'s objections, was found ineligible for special services under section 504.

After a due process hearing conducted at Ms. C.'s request, the administrative law judge upheld the IEP Team's earlier determination that N.L. was not eligible to receive specialized services under the IDEA. On appeal from the administrative decision, the district court first considered whether the school system had complied with the procedural requirements of the IDEA. Based on the meeting of the experts who issued the assessment report prior to the formal IEP Team meeting, the district court concluded that the school system had violated provisions of the IDEA that require full, fair, and informed parental participation in the process. In support of this holding, the district relied heavily on the following exchange between Ms. Machleit, and N.L.'s counsel during the due process hearing:

Q. Did you conclude at the pre M-Team [pre-IEP Team] meeting that N.[L.] did not meet criteria?

A. Under IDEA, that's true.

Q. So the meeting before January 11, 99, the decision was she did not meet certification under IDEA?

A. That's true.

Based on this testimony, the district court found that, prior to the IEP Team meeting, Ms. Machleit met with other members of the evaluation team, and they concluded that N.L. did not meet the requirements for eligibility under the IDEA, thus depriving Ms. C. of her right to participate in this "initial determination" of N.L.'s eligibility.²

The specific nature of these meetings is disputed by the defendants. They contend that any meetings were merely organizational and necessary for the evaluators to complete the assessment report to be given to the IEP Team. Dr. Sherwood and Dr. Greer testified at the administrative hearing that they understood that only the IEP Team could make the actual eligibility determination and that their role was limited to the contribution of their expertise. Notably, Ms. Machleit did not testify and the district court did not find that a final determination was made prior to the...