Charlie F. by Neil F. v. Board of Educ. of Skokie School Dist. 68

• Decision Date: 24 October 1996
• Docket Number: No. 96-1538,96-1538
• Citation: 98 F.3d 989
• Parties: , 113 Ed. Law Rep. 559 CHARLIE F., by his parents and next friends NEIL and Bonnie F., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SKOKIE SCHOOL DISTRICT 68, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 989

98 F.3d 989

65 USLW 2300, 113 Ed. Law Rep. 559

CHARLIE F., by his parents and next friends NEIL and Bonnie F., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SKOKIE SCHOOL DISTRICT 68, et al Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-1538.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued Sept. 27, 1996.

Decided Oct. 24, 1996.

Derrick M. Ford, Laura J. Miller, Jason Yurasek, Law Student (argued), Northwestern University Legal Clinic, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lisa A. Rapacz, Ugne T. Adams, Fay Hartog (argued), Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before CUMMINGS, EASTERBROOK, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

When Charlie F. was in fourth grade, his teacher invited her pupils to vent their feelings about certain topics. One favorite topic was Charlie, whose disabilities (including attention deficit disorder and panic attacks) drew attention. According to the complaint, whose allegations we must accept, the teacher repeatedly invited her pupils to express their complaints about Charlie--and they all too willingly obliged, leading to humiliation, fistfights, mistrust, loss of confidence and self-esteem, and disruption of Charlie's educational progress. The teacher instructed her pupils to tell no one about these sessions, but Charlie's parents eventually found out and moved him to a different school. Youths from his former class still taunt and ridicule Charlie when they meet, in part because of the license they think the fourth grade teacher provided for such behavior.

Charlie has an "individual educational plan" under the auspices of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1491%io (IDEA). His parents are satisfied with his current placement but disgusted with what happened in fourth grade. They filed this suit on Charlie's behalf seeking damages from the teacher, the school's principal (who knew about the gripe sessions), the school district's superintendent, and the school district itself. The suit contends that the Constitution of the United States (through 42 U.S.C. § 1983), the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and the state law of torts all provide damages for misconceived educational strategies that injure disabled pupils. Instead of responding on the merits, however, the defendants asked the court to postpone adjudication until Charlie exhausts administrative remedies under the IDEA, a statute that he had not invoked in the first place. This unusual response depends on an unusual provision in the IDEA, which reads:

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under the Constitution, title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or other Federal statutes protecting the rights of children and youth with disabilities, except that before the filing of a civil action under such laws seeking relief that is available under this subchapter, the procedures under subsections (b)(2) and (c) of this section shall be exhausted to the same extent as would be required had the action been brought under this subchapter.

20 U.S.C. § 1415(f). Thus any pupil who wants "relief that is available under" the IDEA must use the IDEA's administrative system, even if he invokes a different statute. Charlie replied that he wants money damages, which the IDEA does not supply.

The district court dismissed the federal claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (State-law claims went too, once the federal claims disappeared, for the parties are all citizens of Illinois.) The court did not say that the IDEA permits an award of money. Instead, the judge observed, the IDEA covers "any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1)(E). This led the judge to believe that the IDEA occupies the field, an untenable conclusion. Section 1415(f) provides that the IDEA does not limit relief available under other laws. Moreover, failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not deprive a court of jurisdiction; lack of exhaustion usually is waivable, as lack of jurisdiction is not. See Air Courier Conference v. Postal Workers Union, 498 U.S. 517, 522-23 & n. 3, 111 S.Ct. 913, 916-17 & n. 3, 112 L.Ed.2d 1125 (1991); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 766-67, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 2467-68, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975); cf. Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 107 S.Ct. 1671, 95 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987).

We must address the question the district court did not reach: whether Charlie is "seeking relief that is available under" the IDEA. See Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 327, 108 S.Ct. 592, 606, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988). Charlie says that he wants compensatory money damages, which the IDEA does not authorize. It does not contain an explicit limit, but the structure of the statute--with its elaborate provision for educational services and payments to those who deliver them--is inconsistent with monetary awards to children and parents. So we held for the IDEA's predecessor, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Anderson v. Thompson, 658 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir.1981). The two statutes do not differ in any way material to this question, and we conclude that damages are not "relief that is available under" the IDEA. Accord, W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484, 496 (3d Cir.1995). This is the norm for social-welfare programs that specify benefits in kind at public expense, whether medical care or housing or, under the IDEA, education.

Charlie asks us to stop here: he wants compensatory money damages, the IDEA does not provide this form of relief, and that is that. Things are not so clear, however. The statute speaks of available relief, and what relief is "available" does not necessarily depend on what the aggrieved party wants. Certainly not in litigation. "Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered by default, every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in the party's pleadings." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c). The nature of the claim and the governing law determine the relief no matter what the plaintiff demands. If this principle is equally applicable for purposes of § 1415(f), then the theory behind the grievance may activate the IDEA's process, even if the plaintiff wants a form of relief that the IDEA does not supply. Several district courts have used this principle to hold that the pleadings in court do not end the analysis under § 1415(f), and we think these decisions right. See Hoekstra v. Independent School District No. 283, 916 F.Supp. 941 (D.Minn.1996); Doe v. Alfred, 906 F.Supp. 1092 (S.D.W.Va.1995); Waterman v. Marquette-Alger Intermediate School District, 739 F.Supp. 361 (W.D.Mich.1990).

Suppose a school fails to provide a reader for a blind pupil, who as a result falls behind. The IDEA provides relief: the school can assign a reader to the pupil for...