Nelson v. Charles City Cmty. Sch. Dist., 17-1164

• Citation: 900 F.3d 587
• Decision Date: 15 August 2018
• Docket Number: No. 17-1164,17-1164
• Parties: Eugene J. NELSON, as Parents and Next Friends of C.N. a Minor; Lisa J. Nelson, as Parents and Next Friends of C.N. a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHARLES CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

900 F.3d 587

Eugene J. NELSON, as Parents and Next Friends of C.N. a Minor; Lisa J. Nelson, as Parents and Next Friends of C.N. a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.CHARLES CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1164

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 15, 2018

Filed: August 15, 2018

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied September 28, 2018

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Erich Dennis Priebe, of Waterloo, IA. The following attorney(s) appeared on the appellant brief; Erin P. Lyons, of Waterloo, IA.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Beth E. Hansen, of Waterloo, IA.

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, MURPHY and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.^*

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Eugene and Lisa Nelson, as parents and next friends of their daughter C.N., sued the Charles City (Iowa) Community School District. They alleged that the District violated § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), when it failed to make reasonable accommodations for C.N. while she was a student. The district court¹ granted summary judgment for the District, reasoning that the Nelsons failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq . We affirm.

I.

The parties dispute some of the facts in this case; they also have conflicting views on whether factual findings of the Iowa Department of Education in a prior administrative proceeding should have preclusive effect in this action. For purposes of this appeal, we adopt the approach most favorable to the Nelsons. We assume without deciding that the Department’s factual findings that favor the Nelsons preclude relitigation of the same facts here, and we consider other disputed facts in the light most favorable to the Nelsons.

C.N. attended a school in the Charles City Community School District for ninth grade during the 2013-2014 school year. When Lisa Nelson registered C.N., she reported under "Medical Conditions" that C.N. had polycystic ovarian syndrome

("PCOS") and depression. C.N. was absent frequently from school due to depression and complications from PCOS. On April 29, 2014, the District submitted a Truancy Referral Form regarding C.N. to the Floyd County Attorney. The Nelsons met with representatives from the District for a truancy mediation on May 22, 2014. The parties agreed that C.N. would obtain a mental health evaluation, and attend school through the end of the school year, summer school, and subsequent mediations.

After the May 2014 mediation, Mrs. Nelson began to inquire about online educational opportunities for C.N. At a truancy mediation in July 2014, school officials encouraged Mrs. Nelson and C.N. to apply to the Iowa Connections Academy, an online educational opportunity offered through the CAM Community School District based in Anita, Iowa. Mrs. Nelson elected not to proceed with that option, and applied instead to the Iowa Virtual Academy, an online educational program through Clayton Ridge Community School District in Guttenberg, Iowa.

Under Iowa law, through a process called open enrollment, parents may apply to enroll their child in a school district other than their own. See Iowa Code § 282.18. On July 26, 2014, Mrs. Nelson filed an open enrollment application with the Clayton Ridge District for the 2014-2015 school year, seeking permission to enroll C.N. outside the Charles City District. The application deadline was March 1, 2014, but Mrs. Nelson asserted that she had "good cause" for applying late. She represented that C.N. "was bullied, but more importantly has health issues that interfere with attendance, PCOS & depression."

The superintendent of Clayton Ridge District recommended denying the application as untimely. He expressed willingness to reconsider, if the Charles City District recommended approval, but the Charles City superintendent also recommended denial. He noted that the application was untimely, and that the Charles City District had its own online classes in which C.N. could enroll.

The Nelsons took the matter to the Charles City Board of Education, but the Board voted in early September 2014 to deny the open enrollment application. The Nelsons then appealed to the Iowa State Board of Education under Iowa Code § 290.1. The State Board ruled in favor of the Nelsons in February 2015 in the open enrollment proceedings:

[Mrs. Nelson’s] application for open enrollment was the direct result of the [Charles City District] facilitating her open enrollment application because they could not meet the needs of C.N. [Mrs. Nelson] did exactly what administration told her to do. She has a right to expect that the district would recommend that the board approve her request, especially when [Mrs. Nelson] and C.N. are involved in a criminal truancy prosecution initiated by Charles City.

After the State Board approved the open enrollment application, Mrs. Nelson sought to enroll C.N. in the online program through the Clayton Ridge District. But the program’s representatives told Mrs. Nelson that because the school year was already underway, C.N. would have to wait until the following school year to enroll.

C.N. was not enrolled in school while her open enrollment application was pending, and the Nelsons were concerned that waiting until 2015-2016 would interfere with her education. So they decided instead to enroll C.N. at a nearby community college to take certified nursing assistant classes. C.N. never returned to high school, but obtained her nursing assistant certification and has pursued a General Equivalency Diploma.

Although the Nelsons pursued an appeal with the Iowa State Board on the discrete issue of C.N.’s open enrollment application, they never invoked the separate set of administrative procedures that were available to them under the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq . The IDEA sets forth a number of procedural safeguards to ensure that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education. Id. § 1415. Under that comprehensive statutory framework, parents of a disabled child may work with a team of qualified professionals to develop an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") to ensure that their child receives special education and related services that will enable her to meet educational goals. Id. § 1414(d). The Nelsons did not avail themselves of these IDEA procedures.

On August 11, 2015, six months after the Iowa State Board issued its decision on the open enrollment issue, the Nelsons filed this action under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The district court granted summary judgment for Charles City District on the ground that the Nelsons had not exhausted their administrative remedies under the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq . The court reasoned that although the Nelsons had brought their claim under the Rehabilitation Act, "Congress has explicitly required that the administrative remedies provided by the IDEA must be exhausted before a Rehabilitation Act suit like this one may be filed." See id. § 1415(l ). We review de novo whether the Nelsons were required to exhaust their administrative remedies under the IDEA. McCauley ex rel. J.M. v. Francis Howell Sch. Dist. , 850 F.3d 944, 947 (8th Cir. 2017).

II.

A.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides: "No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ...." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The Rehabilitation Act itself does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing an action in the district court, but the parties dispute whether the IDEA imposes an exhaustion requirement on the Nelsons’ claim.

To receive federal funding under the IDEA, States must implement a number of procedures "to ensure individuals with disabilities will have the opportunity to obtain a free appropriate public education." J.B. ex rel. Bailey v. Avilla R-XIII Sch. Dist. , 721 F.3d 588, 592 (8th Cir. 2013) ; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412. One feature is that a party may file a complaint relating to the "identification, evaluation, or educational placement" of a child with a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") to such a child. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A). A complainant "shall have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing, which shall be conducted by the State educational agency or by the local educational agency," depending on state law. Id. § 1415(f)(1)(A). An aggrieved party who has exhausted the IDEA’s administrative procedures may bring an action in the federal district court. Id. § 1415(g), (i)(2)(A). Iowa has implemented administrative procedures to comply with the requirements of the IDEA. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 281-41.1 et seq .

A key point for our purposes is that the IDEA exhaustion requirement is not limited to claims formally brought under the IDEA. It also applies where a plaintiff brings a claim under the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and other federal laws protecting children with disabilities if such a claim "seek[s] relief that is also available under" the IDEA. Id. § 1415(l ). A suit seeks relief that is also available under the IDEA if it "seek[s] relief for the denial of a FAPE, because that is the only ‘relief’ the IDEA makes ‘available.’ " Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch. , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 743, 752, 197 L.Ed.2d 46 (2017). Thus, if the Nelsons sought relief for the denial of a FAPE for C.N., they were required to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative procedures before bringing their Rehabilitation Act claim.

In Fry , the Supreme Court addressed how to determine whether a lawsuit concerns the denial of a FAPE. The Court clarified that one need not exhaust...