The general rule regarding claims under IDEA provides a parent must first file any actions in administrative court before they can move forward into federal court. This doctrine is referred to as "exhaustion of administrative remedies ." The most talked about special education ruling of 2011 dealt specifically with this doctrine and how it relates when a parent is not alleging a claim under IDEA but rather a claim under Section 1983 (discrimination) for their disabled child. Payne v. Peninsula School District, 57 IDELR 31 (9th Cir. 2011). This case will not be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court as certiorari was denied on February 21, 2012. This case centered on the misuse of a time-out room for a child with disabilities. The Parents claimed the child's rights under section 1983 were violated and filed in federal court. The case was dismissed at the district court level as the court indicated Parents should have filed with the CA Office of Administrative Hearings rather than federal court. The 9th Circuit held that the District court erred in dismissing a properly pleaded Section 1983 claim. The court reasoned that the application of the IDEA's exhaustion requirement turns on the relief sought rather than the injury alleged. Specifically, the 9th Circuit observed that exhaustion is required when a parent seeks: 1) an IDEA remedy such as tuition reimbursement; 2) a change in student's program or placement; and 3) the enforcement of rights arising from a denial of FAPE.
We welcome your participation in the discussions on this blog. Feel free to comment on posts that interest you
Contact Our Office
Contact us by email or call us at 714-602-1498 or 866-781-7723 (toll free) for more information.