I.L. v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

Decision Date15 June 2017
Docket NumberNo. 3:15-cv-558.,3:15-cv-558.
Parties I.L., a Minor THROUGH her parent Donna TAYLOR, and Donna Taylor, Plaintiffs and Counter–Defendants, v. KNOX COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant and Counter–Claimant, and Knox County, Tennessee ; and Tennessee Department of Education, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

Michael L. Russell, Gilbert Russell McWherter Scott Bobbitt PLC, Franklin, TN, Jessica F. Salonus, Gilbert Russell McWherter PLC, Jackson, TN, Justin S. Gilbert, Gilbert Russell McWherter Scott & Bobbitt, Chattanooga, TN, for Plaintiffs and Counter–Defendants.

Amanda Lynn Morse, Susan Esterle Crabtree, Office of Knox County Law Director, Knoxville, TN, Joyce G. Safley, Law Office of Melinda Jacobs, Franklin, TN, Melinda Maloney Jacobs, Law Office of Melinda Jacobs, Townsend, TN, Michael K. Markham, Office of the Attorney General, Nashville, TN, for Defendant and Counter–Claimant.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

PAMELA L. REEVES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

"Nothing about this case is typical." Hr'g Tr. at 980:13–14. It involves a daughter with Down syndrome

and her mother. It involves the mother's efforts to integrate her daughter into public school, the schools' efforts to honor the mother's efforts, and the state's response to how its schools treat disabled students. It involves the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Tennessee Special Education Behavioral Supports Act. It involves a 3000–page administrative record from the state. And it involves ten motions that have been filed over the past thirteen months. They are as follows:

1. the Tennessee Department of Education's motion to dismiss;
2. the Department's motion for summary judgment;
3. Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment against the Department;
4. the Department's countermotion for summary judgment;
5. Plaintiffs' motion to admit the Department of Education's answer to an interrogatory showing a violation of the Special Education Behavioral Supports Act;
6. Knox County Schools's motion to strike the interrogatory answer;
7. Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the administrative record;
8. Knox County Schools's motion for judgment on the administrative record;
9. the Department's motion to stay this case until the Court rules on the pending motions; and
10. Defendants' motion to continue trial.

And for the reasons stated below, the Court orders as follows:

1. the Department's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part;
2. the Department's motion for summary judgment is granted;
3. Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied;
4. the Department's countermotion for summary judgment is denied as moot;
5. Plaintiffs' motion to admit the Department's answer to an interrogatory is denied;
6. Knox County Schools's motion to strike is denied as moot;
7. the motions for judgment on the administrative record are granted in favor of Knox County Schools on the IDEA claims and in favor of Taylor on the IDEA—Supports Act claim, and the Court orders remedies;
8. the Department's motion to stay is denied as moot; and
9. Defendants' motion to continue is granted.

Table of Contents

II. The Department of Education's Motion to Dismiss...957
V. The Department's Countermotion for Summary Judgment Is Denied as Moot...975
VIII. The Department's Motion to Stay Is Denied as Moot...994
X. Conclusion...995
I
A

This case involves three federal laws and one state law. They are complex and chocked full of jargon, so a survey of these laws will help. See, e.g. , Transcript of Oral Argument at 47:6–8, Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE–1 , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 988, 197 L.Ed.2d 335 (2017) (No. 70–18) (Alito, J.) (remarking that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is "frustrating" because it involves a "blizzard of words").

In 1954, the Supreme Court declared that "education is perhaps the most important function of state and local government." Brown v. Bd. of Educ. , 347 U.S. 483, 493, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954). But in 1975, Congress found that state and local governments were not providing a proper education to disabled children. Honig v. Doe , 484 U.S. 305, 309, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988) ; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(2). So it passed what is now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 – 1491o. The IDEA's goal is to provide all disabled children with a free appropriate public education, or a FAPE. See id. § 1412(a)(1).

A FAPE has four parts. Two are relevant here. First, the school must provide the FAPE "in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(d) of this title." Id. § 1401(9)(D). The individual education program—or IEP—is "the centerpiece of the statute's education delivery system for disabled children." Honig , 484 U.S. at 311, 108 S.Ct. 592.1 The IEP includes the child's functionality, her current academic performance, her academic goals, how to measure academic progress, and what accommodations she needs. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i). A team of school officials, teachers, and the child's parents work together to form the IEP. Id. § 1414(d)(1)(B).

Second, the FAPE must "meet the standards of the State educational agency." Id. § 1401(9)(B). Here, the state educational agency is the Tennessee Department of Education. The Department must craft a plan that, among other things, allows all disabled children to receive a FAPE in the least-restrictive environment. Id. § 1412(a)(1), (5). The Department must then supervise its school districts—or local educational agencies—to ensure that they follow this plan. Id. § 1412(a)(11).

The Department must also provide an administrative grievance procedure for disabled children and their parents. Id. §§ 1412(a)(6), 1415. This procedure is meant to be a faster, cheaper alternative to litigation. It has several steps. First, the parent may file a complaint on any FAPE-related matter with the school district or the state educational agency. Id. § 1415(b)(6). The district or agency then investigates the matter if needed and responds accordingly. 34 C.F.R. § 300.152. Meanwhile, the school convenes a preliminary meeting between the parents, school officials, and the child's IEP team. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i) ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.510.

If the preliminary meeting fails to resolve the conflict, then the parties may proceed to mediation. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.506. Mediation is voluntary. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2)(A)(i). An impartial mediator leads each session, and each session must happen in a timely manner at a place convenient for the parties. Id. § 1415(e)(2)(E). The state bears the full cost of mediation. Id. § 1415(e)(2)(D).

If mediation fails, or if the parties choose not to mediate, then a party may file a due-process complaint and have a due-process hearing. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A), (f) ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.514. An administrative law judge conducts the hearing, under the authority of either the school district or the state educational agency. 34 C.F.R. § 300.511(b)(c). The ALJ's decision is final. Id. § 300.514(a). But if the ALJ acted under the school district's authority, then the parties may appeal to the state educational agency for another due-process hearing. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(g)(1) ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.514(b)(1). The state due-process hearing is the end of the IDEA's grievance procedure.

The IDEA requires that state educational agencies set up this three-step grievance procedure—complaint resolution, mediation, and due-process hearings. 34 C.F.R. § 300.500. The Tennessee government and the Department of Education have done so. See TENN. CODE ANN. §§ 49–10–604 to –606; TENN. COMP. R. & REGS. 0520–01–09–.01, – .17, – .18. State educational agencies must also ensure that school districts implement the grievance procedure and tell parents about it. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149(...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • J.M. By & Through Mata v. Tn Dept. Of Educ., Case No. 3:17-cv-00405
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • December 12, 2018
    ...v. Tenn. Dep't of Educ. , No. 3:16-CV-0610, 2017 WL 1347753, at *9 (M.D. Tenn. April 12, 2017) ; I.L. ex rel. Taylor v. Knox Cty. Bd. of Educ. , 257 F.Supp.3d 946, 964 (E.D. Tenn. 2017) ). An allegation that defendants provided special education and related services that violated the substa......
  • J.A. v. Smith Cnty. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • March 6, 2019
    ...Smith testified that a full-time aide could be set up for J.A. at NMES.Defendant's reliance on I.L. through Taylor v. Knox Cty. Bd. of Educ. , 257 F.Supp.3d 946 (E.D. Tenn. 2017), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. I.L. by & through Taylor v. Tennessee Dep't of Educ. , 739 F. App'x 319 (6th Ci......
  • Bradley v. Jefferson Cnty. Pub. Sch.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • April 18, 2022
    ...motion because plaintiff's appeal to the Exceptional Children Appeals Board was untimely); cf. I.L. v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ. , 257 F. Supp. 3d 946, 957, 960-64 (E.D. Tenn. 2017) (district court granted Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to the IDEA grievance-procedure interference claim but denied i......
  • P.G. v. Rutherford Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • May 29, 2018
    ...and "[t]he same conduct might violate all three statutes." Fry, 137 S.Ct. at 756 ; see also I.L. through Taylor v. Knox Cty. Bd. of Educ., 257 F.Supp.3d 946, 954–55 (E.D. Tenn. 2017) (stating that "[s]ome claims can be brought under the IDEA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Reh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT