J.B. v. Avilla R-Xiii Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 24 July 2013
• Docket Number: 12–1113.,Nos. 12–1112,s. 12–1112
• Citation: 721 F.3d 588
• Parties: J.B., by and through his next friends Kevin BAILEY and Laurie Bailey; Kevin Bailey; Laurie Bailey, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. AVILLA R–XIII SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant–Appellee. A.L.A., by and through his next friend Laura Liberty; Laura Liberty, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. Avilla R–XIII School District, Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

721 F.3d 588

J.B., by and through his next friends Kevin BAILEY and Laurie Bailey; Kevin Bailey; Laurie Bailey, Plaintiffs–Appellants

v.AVILLA R–XIII SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant–Appellee.

A.L.A., by and through his next friend Laura Liberty; Laura Liberty, Plaintiffs–Appellants

v.Avilla R–XIII School District, Defendant–Appellee.

Nos. 12–1112, 12–1113.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 16, 2013.

Filed: July 24, 2013.

Margaret O'Sullivan Kane, argued, Saint Paul, MN, for appellant.

Ernest G. Trakas, argued, Saint Louis, MO, for appellee.

Before BYE, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

BYE, Circuit Judge.

J.B., by and through his parents, Kevin and Laurie Bailey, J.B.'s parents themselves, A.L.A., by and through his guardian, Laura Liberty, and Laura Liberty herself (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against the Avilla R–XIII School District (“District”), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 706 and 794a. The District moved for summary judgment. The district court, ¹ concluding the Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, granted the motion. The Plaintiffs now appeal. We affirm.

I

At all times pertinent to this case, J.B. and A.L.A. attended schools in the District. J.B. and A.L.A. each have a disability. Both also had an individualized education program (“IEP”). J.B.'s parents participated in the design of J.B.'s IEP. A.L.A.'s guardian similarly participated in the design of A.L.A.'s IEP. Both J.B.'s parents and A.L.A.'s guardian, however, had ongoing disputes with the District over the manner in which the District implemented the IEPs.

While the disputes were ongoing, J.B.'s parents filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) about the District's disability discrimination grievance resolution process, averring the process was inadequate for addressing parents' complaints about IEP issues. Appellants' App. 18. The OCR investigated and found the process adequate for addressing IEP-related complaints, but inadequate to handle complaints regarding other forms of disability discrimination. Id. at 23.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1491, a parent dissatisfied with the manner in which an IEP is implemented may file a due process complaint with the local state agency. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2). The Plaintiffs, however, did not file IDEA due process complaints and instead jointly filed suit in district court. They filed two disability discrimination claims alleging the District had discriminated against J.B. and A.L.A. in violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, by failing to adequately implement each child's IEP or establish an adequate grievanceresolution process for disability discrimination complaints. Appellants' Supplemental App. 3. As relief for those claims, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory education, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees. Id. at 4. The Plaintiffs also filed two claims alleging J.B.'s parents and A.L.A.'s guardian had paid and would continue to pay education-related expenses for materials and services which should have been borne by the District, for which they seek money damages and attorneys' fees. Id. at 5–6. Upon the District's motion, the district court severed the claims of J.B. and J.B.'s parents from those of A.L.A. and A.L.A.'s guardian.

The District moved for summary judgment in each case, which the district court granted. The district court concluded all of the claims related to the implementation of IEPs. As such, the district court dismissed the claims, further concluding the Plaintiffs had been required to go through the IDEA due process complaint procedures before filing suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The Plaintiffs appealed and the cases were reconsolidated.

II

The central issue in these reconsolidated cases is whether the Plaintiffs were required to exhaust their administrative remedies under the IDEA before filing their ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims in district court. We review de novo the grant of a motion for summary judgment and the underlying issue of whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was required. Brown v. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs., Inc., 586 F.3d 1079, 1083 n. 4 (8th Cir.2009) (citing Hutson v. Wells Dairy, Inc., 578 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir.2009)).

In the IDEA, Congress established procedural safeguards to ensure individuals with disabilities will have the opportunity to obtain a free appropriate public education (FAPE). 20 U.S.C. § 1415(a). The primary tool for implementing the aims of the IDEA is the IEP, which “tailor[s] the statutorily required ‘free appropriate public education’ to each child's unique needs.” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(5)). The other safeguards “include ... an opportunity to present complaints concerning any aspect of the local agency's provision of a free appropriate public education; and an opportunity for ‘an impartial due process hearing’ with respect to any such complaints.” Id. at 311–12, 108 S.Ct. 592 (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1), (2)). A party aggrieved by the outcome of an IDEA due process hearing may challenge the outcome before the state educational review agency. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(g)(1). The outcome of the administrative review hearing may then be disputed in district court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). However, before parties may bring a claim in district court under a different statute for which they seek relief which is also available under the IDEA, the parties must first exhaust the administrative remedies under the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1415( l ). Section 1415( l ) of the IDEA sets forth:

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 [42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.], title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C.A. § 791 et seq.], or other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities, except that before the filing of a civil action under such laws seeking relief that is also available under this subchapter, the procedures under subsections (f) and (g) 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( l ) (emphasis added).

The Plaintiffs did not go through the IDEA due process complaint procedures before filing their ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims in the district court. Accordingly, the only questions are whether they seek relief available under the IDEA and, if so, whether an exception to the IDEA's exhaustion requirement applies.

A

The Plaintiffs first contend their claims are not subject to the exhaustion requirement of 20 U.S.C. § 1415( l ) because they do not seek relief which is available under the IDEA.² We find this contention to be without merit.

The Plaintiffs seek relief available under the IDEA for their disability discrimination claims. Although the Plaintiffs base those claims on allegations the District failed to develop an adequate disability discrimination grievance resolution process, they also allege the District failed to adequately implement J.B.'s and A.L.A.'s IEPs as a basis for the claims. For those claims, the Plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, compensatory education, and compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are not available through the IDEA. Heidemann v. Rother, 84 F.3d 1021, 1033 (8th Cir.1996). Compensatory education, however, is. Birmingham v. Omaha Sch. Dist., 220 F.3d 850, 856 (8th Cir.2000). As are attorneys' fees. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B).

The Plaintiffs also seek relief available under the IDEA for their claims based on payment of education-related materials and services. In School Committee of Burlington, Massachusetts v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359, 370–71, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985), the Supreme Court considered whether the potential relief available under the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA), the predecessor to the IDEA, “includes reimbursement to parents for private school tuition and related expenses.” Id. at 367, 105 S.Ct. 1996. The Court noted that a court reviewing the outcome of EHA administrative proceedings was authorized to award the relief it deemed appropriate. Id. at 369, 105 S.Ct. 1996;see also20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii). Reasoning reimbursement did not constitute money damages for the purposes of the EHA as it was merely the payment of expenses the school district should have paid all along, the Court held reimbursement to be an available form of relief under the EHA. Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370–71, 105 S.Ct. 1996.

Notably, Burlington concerned a claim only for reimbursement of tuition paid at a private institution and related expenses. Id. at 367, 105 S.Ct. 1996. However, other circuits which have consideredthe issue post-Burlington have held reimbursement available for private educational services beyond tuition at a private institution. See Payne v. Peninsula Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863, 877 (9th Cir.2011) (“If the measure of a plaintiff's damages is the cost of counseling, tutoring, or private schooling—relief available under the IDEA—then the IDEA requires exhaustion.”), cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1540, 182 L.Ed.2d 161 (2012); Nieves–Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 124 (1st Cir.2003) (“[E]quitable remedies that involve the payment of money, such as reimbursements to parents for expenses incurred on private educational services to which their child was later found to have been entitled, remain available[.]”); Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478, 486 (2d Cir.2002) (holding reimbursement for private tutoring...