# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 11 64

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Eug en e J. Nel so n, as Pare nt s an d Nex t Fr ie nd s o f C.N. a Mi no r; Li sa J. Nel so n, as

Pare nt s an d Nex t Fr ie nd s o f C.N. a Mi no r,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts ,

v.

Ch arl es Cit y

Co m m un it y Sch oo l Di st ric t,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 15 , 20 18 Fi le d: Aug us t 1 5, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MURPHY an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s. *

__ __ __ __ __ __
COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Eug en e an d Lis a Nels o n , as pa ren ts an d ne xt fri en ds of th ei r da ug ht er C.N.,

su ed th e Ch arl es Ci ty (Io wa) Co m m un i t y S c h o o l Dis tri ct

. The y al le ge d th at th e

Thi s op in io n is fil ed by Ch ie f Ju dg e Sm it h an d Ju dg e Co ll ot on un de r Eig ht h * Ci rcu it Ru le 47 E.Dis tri ct vi ol at ed § 5 04 of t he Reh ab il it at io n Act , 2 9 U.S.C. § 7 94 (a), wh en it fai le d

to m ak e reas on ab le acco m m od at io ns fo r C.N. whi le sh e was a st ud en t. T he di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t for th e Dis tri ct , reas on in g th at th e Nels on s fail ed 1

to ex h a u s t th ei r ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s as req ui red un de r th e In di vi du al s wit h
Dis ab il it ie s Ed uc at io n Act (“ IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1 40 0 et seq . W e aff

irm.

I.

The pa rti es di sp ut e so m e o f th e fact s in th is cas e; th ey al so ha ve co nf li ct in g vi ews on whe th er fact ua l fin di ng s of th e Io wa Dep a r t ment of Edu cat io n in a pr io r ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc eed in g sh ou ld ha ve pr ecl us iv e effe ct in th is act io n. Fo r pu rp os es of th is ap pe al
, we ad op t th e ap p r o a c h mo s t fav or ab le to th e Nels on s. W e as su m e wit ho ut d eci di ng th at th e Dep art m en t’s fact ua l fin di ng s th at fav or th e Nels on s
pr ecl ud e rel it ig at io n o f th e sa m e fac ts he re, an d we c on si de r ot he r di sp ut ed fact s in
th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Nel so ns

.

C.N. at te nd ed a sc ho ol in th e Ch arl es Ci ty Co m m un it y Sch oo l Dis tri ct fo r ni nt h

gr ad e d u r i n g t h e 20 13 -2 01 4 sc ho ol y ear. W he n Lis a Nels on reg is te red C.N., sh e

r e p o rte d un de r “ Med ic al Co nd it io ns ” th at C.N. ha d po lycy st ic ov ari an synd ro me (“ PCOS” ) an d de pr es si on

. C.N. was ab se nt freq ue nt ly fro m sc ho ol du e to de pr es si on

an d co m pl ic at io ns fro m PCOS. On Apr il 29
, 20 14
, th e Dis tri ct su bm it te d a Trua nc y Refe rral Fo rm reg ard in g C.N. to th e Fl oyd Co un ty Att or ne y

. The Nels on s m et wit h

rep res en ta ti ve s f

r o m th e Dis tri ct fo r a tru an cy m ed ia ti on on May 22
, 20 14

. The

pa rti es ag reed th at C.N. wou ld ob ta in a m en ta l h eal th ev al ua ti on , and at te nd sc ho ol
th ro ug h t he en d o f th e sc ho ol y ear, s um m er s ch oo l, an d s ub se qu en t m ed ia ti on s.

The Hon or ab le Edwar d J. McM an us , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa , no w dec eas ed

.
-2

-Afte r th e May 20 14 m ed ia ti on , Mr s

. N e l so n be ga n to in qu ire ab ou t on li ne

ed uc at io na l op po rtu ni ti es fo r C.N. At a tru an cy m ed ia ti on in Ju ly 20 14
, sc ho ol
of fic ia ls en co ur ag ed Mrs

. N el so n an d C.N. to ap pl y to th e Io wa Co nn ect io ns Acad em y , an o nl in e ed uc at io na l o pp or tu ni ty of fere d th ro ug h th e CAM Com m un it y Sc h oo l Dis tri ct ba se d in Ani ta , I owa

. Mrs . Ne ls on el ect ed no t to pr oc eed wit h th at

op ti on , an d ap pl ie d in st ead to th e Io wa Virt ua l Acad em y , an o n l i n e ed uc at io na l

pr og ram th ro ug h C la y to n R id ge Co m m un it y Sch oo l Di st ric t i n Gu tt en be rg , Iowa

.

Und er Io wa la w, th ro ug h a pr oc es s cal le d op en en ro ll m en t, pa ren ts m ay ap pl y
to en ro ll th ei r ch il d in a sc ho ol di st ric t ot he r th an th ei r own

. Se e Io wa Co de § 28 2.1 8.
On Ju ly 26
, 20 14
, Mrs

. Nels on fil ed an op en en ro ll m en t ap pl ic at io n wit h th e Cl ay to n Ri dg e Dis tri ct fo r th e 20 14 -2 01 5 sc ho ol y ear, se ek in g pe rm is si on to en ro ll C.N.

ou ts id e th e Ch arl es Cit y

Dis tri ct . The ap pl ic at io n dea dl in e was Marc h 1 , 20 14 , bu t
Mrs . Ne l s o n a s s e r t ed th at sh e ha d “ go od cau se ” fo r ap pl y in g la te

. Sh e rep res en te d
th at C.N. “ was b u l l i e d
, bu t m or e im po rta nt ly ha s he al th is su es th at in te rfer e wit h

at te nd an ce, PCOS & d ep res si on .”

Th e s u pe rin te nd en t of Cl ay to n Ri dg e Dis tri ct reco m m en de d de nyin g th e
ap pl ic at io n as un ti m el y

. He ex pr es se d wil li ng ne ss to reco ns id er, if th e Ch arl es Ci ty Dis tri ct reco m

men de d ap pr ov al
, bu t th e Ch arl es Ci ty su pe rin te nd en t al so

reco m m en de d de ni al

. He no te d th a t t h e a p p li cat io n was un ti m el y , an d th at th e Ch arl es Cit y

Dis tri ct ha d i ts own on li ne cla ss es in whi ch C.N. cou ld en ro ll

.

The Nels on s to ok th e m at te r to th e Ch arl es Ci ty Bo ard of Edu cat io n, b ut th e Bo ard vo te d in earl y Sep te m be r 20 14 to de ny th e op en en ro ll m en t ap pl ic at io n. The
Nels on s th en ap pe al ed to th e Io wa S t a t e B oa rd of Edu cat io n un de r Io wa Co de § 29 0.1

. The St at e Bo ard ru le d in fav or of th e Nels on s in Feb ru ary 20 15 in th e op en

en ro ll m en t p ro ceed in gs :

-3

-[Mr s. Nels on ’s] ap pl ic at io n fo r op en en ro ll m en t was th e di rect res ul t of

th e [Ch arl es Ci ty D i s t ric t] f aci li ta ti ng he r op en en ro ll m en t ap pl ic at io n be cau se th ey co ul d no t m eet t h e ne ed s of C.N. [Mr s. Nels on ] di d

ex act ly wha t ad m in is tra ti on to ld he r to do

. Sh e ha s a rig ht to ex pe ct th at th e di st ric t wou ld reco m m en d th at th e bo ard ap p ro ve he r req ue st , es pe ci al ly whe n [Mr s

. N e l s o n ] an d C.N. are in vo lv ed in a cri m in al
tru an cy pro se cu ti on in it ia te d b y

Ch arl es Cit y

.

Afte r th e St at e Bo ard ap pr ov ed th e op en en ro ll m en t ap pl ic at io n, Mrs

. Nels on

so ug ht to en ro ll C.N. in th e on li ne pr og ram th ro ug h th e Cl ay to n Ri dg e Dis tri ct

. Bu t th e pr og ram ’s rep res en ta ti ve s to ld Mrs

. Nels on th at be cau se th e sc ho ol y ear was al read y un de rway , C.N. wou ld ha ve to wait un ti l th e fo ll owi ng sc ho ol y ear to en ro ll

.

C.N. was no t en ro ll ed in sc ho ol whi le he r op en en ro ll m en t ap pl ic at io n was
pe nd in g, an d th e Nels o n s w e re co nc ern ed th at wait in g un ti l 20 15 -2 01 6 wou ld
in te rfer e wit h he r ed uc at i on

. So th ey de ci de d in st ead to en ro ll C.N. at a ne arb y

co m m un it y co ll eg e to ta ke cert ifi ed nu rs in g as si st an t cl as se s. C.N. ne ve r ret ur ne d to hi gh sc ho ol, but ob ta in ed he r nu rs in g as si st an t cert ifi cat io n an d ha s pu rs ue d a Gen eral Equ iv al en cy

Dip lo m a.

Alt ho ug h th e Nels on s pu rs ue d an ap pe al wit h th e Io wa S ta te Bo ard on th e di sc ret e is su e of C.N.’ s op en en ro ll m en t ap pl ic at io n, th ey ne ve r in vo ke d th e se pa rat e

se t of ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc ed ur es th at were av ai la bl e to th em un de r th e IDEA, 20
U.S.C. § 14 00 et se q

. The IDEA se ts fo rth a nu m be r of pr oc ed u r a l s a f

e gu ard s to

en su re th at ch il dr en wit h di sa bi li ti es rece iv e a free ap pr op ria te pu bl ic ed uc at io n. Id

. § 14 15

. Und er tha t co m

pr eh en si ve st at ut or y fram ewo rk
, pa ren ts of a di sa bl ed ch il d

m ay w o r k wit h a te am of qu al ifi ed pr of es si on al s to de ve lo p an In di vi du al iz ed
Edu cat io n Pro gr am (“ IEP”) to en su re th at th ei r ch il d rece iv es sp eci al ed uc at io n an d
rel at ed se rv ic es th at wil l en a b l e h e r to m eet ed uc at io na l go al s. Id

. § 14 14 (d ). The
Nels on s d id no t av ai l t he m se lv es of t he se IDEA pro ced ur es

.

-4

-On Aug us t 11
, 20 15
, si x m on th s aft er th e Io wa St at e Bo ard is su ed it s de ci si on

o n t h e op en en ro ll m en t is su e, th e Nels on s fil ed th is act io n un de r § 50 4 of th e Reh ab il it at io n Act, 29 U.S.C. § 79 4( a). The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Ch arl es Ci ty Dis tri ct on th e gr ou nd th at th e Nels on s ha d no t ex ha us te d th ei r ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s un de r th e IDEA, 20 U

. S.C. § 14 00 et se q

. The co ur t

reas on ed th at al th ou gh th e Nels on s ha d br ou gh t th ei r cl ai m un de r th e Reh ab il it at io n Act, “ Co ng res s ha s ex pl ic it ly req ui red th at th e ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s pr ov id ed by
th e IDEA m

us t be ex ha us te d b e f

o r e a Reh ab il it at io n Act su it li ke th is on e m ay be
fil ed .” Se e id

. § 1 41 5( l ). W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er the Nels on s were req ui red to

ex ha u s t t h e i r ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s un de r th e IDEA. McCa ul ey ex re l. J.M. v. Fra nc is Howe ll

Sc h. Di st

. , 85 0 F .3d 94 4, 9 47 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7)

.

II.

A.

Sect io n 50 4 of t he Reh ab il it at io n Act pr ov id es : “ No ot he rwis e qu al ifi ed
in di vi du al wit h a di sa bi li ty i n t he Uni te d S ta te s . . . sh al l, s ol el y by reaso n o f he r or hi s di sa bi li ty, be ex cl ud ed fro m th e pa rti ci pa ti on in
, be de ni ed th e be ne fit s of, or be

su bjec te d to di sc riminat io n un de r an y pr og ram or act iv it y rece iv in g Fed eral fin an ci al

as si st an ce . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 79 4( a). The Reh ab il it at io n Act its el f do es no t requ ire

a pl ai nt iff to ex ha us t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s be fo re br in gi ng an act io n in th e di st ric t

co ur t, bu t th e pa rti es di sp ut e whe th er the IDEA im po se s an exh au st io n req ui rem en t

on th e Nel so ns ’ cl ai m

.

To rece iv e fed eral fu nd in g un de r th e IDEA, St at es m us t im pl em en t a nu m

be r of pr oc ed ur es “ to en su re in di v i d u al s wit h di sa bi li ti es wil l ha ve th e op po rtu ni ty to ob ta in a free ap pr op ria te pu bl ic ed uc at io n.” Bai le y ex rel

. J.B. v. Avil la R-XIII S ch

. Dis t. , 7 21 F.3 d 58 8, 59 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ); se e 20 U

. S

. C. § 14 12

. One feat ur e is th at

-5

-a pa rty m ay fil e a co m pl ai nt rel at in g to th e “ id en ti fic at io n, ev al ua ti on , or ed uc at io na l pl acement” of a ch il d wi th a di sa bi li ty, or th e p ro vi si on of a free ap pr op ria te pu bl ic
ed uc at io n (“ FA P E”) to su ch a ch il d. 20 U.S.C. § 14 15 (b )(6 )(A). A co m pl ai na nt

“ sh al l h a v e a n op po rtu ni ty fo r an im pa rti al du e pr oc es s he ari ng , whi ch sh al l be

co nd uc te d by th e St at e ed uc at io na l ag en cy or b y t h e l oc al ed uc at io na l ag en cy ,”
de pe nd in g on st at e la w. Id

. § 14 15 (f)(1 )(A). An ag gr ie ve d pa rty who ha s ex ha us te d
th e IDEA’ s ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc ed ur es m ay br in g an act io n in th e fed eral distr ict co ur t. Id

. § 14 15 (g ), (i) (2 )(A). Io wa ha s im pl em en te d ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc ed ur es to co m pl y wit h t he req ui rem en ts of t he IDEA. Se e Iowa Adm in . Cod e r. 2 81 -4 1.1 et seq

.

A ke y po in t fo r ou r p u r

po se s is th at th e IDEA ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t is no t li m it ed to cl ai m s fo rm al ly br ou gh t un de r th e IDEA. It al so ap pl ie s whe re a pl ai nt iff
br in gs a cl ai m un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on , th e A mer ic an s wit h Dis ab il it ie s Act, th e Reh ab il it at io n Act, an d ot he r fed eral la ws pr ot ect in g ch il dr en wit h di sa bi li ti es if su ch

a cl ai m “ se ek [s ] rel ie f th at is als o a va il ab le un de r” t he IDEA. Id

. § 1 41 5( l ). A s ui t

se ek s rel ie f th at is al so av ai la bl e un de r th e IDEA if it “ se ek [s ] rel ie f fo r th e de ni al of

a FAPE, be cau se th at is th e on ly ‘reli ef’ th e IDEA m ak es ‘avai la bl e. ’” Fr y v. Na po le on Cmty

. Sc h.
, 13 7 S. Ct

. 74 3, 75 2 (2 01 7)

. Thu s, if th e Nels on s so ug ht rel ie f
fo r th e de ni al of a FAPE fo r C.N., th e y w ere req ui red to ex ha us t th e IDEA’ s ad m in is tra ti ve pro ced ur es be fo re b rin gi ng th ei r Reh ab il it at io n Act cla im

.

I n Fr y , th e Su pr em e Co ur t ad dr es se d ho w to de te rm in e whe th er a la wsu it

co nc ern s th e de ni al of a FAPE. The Co ur t cl ari fie d t h a t o n e ne ed no t ex ha us t th e IDEA’ s ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc ed ur es whe ne ve r a su it “ ha s so m e art ic ul ab le co nn ect io n
to th e ed uc at io n of a ch il d wit h a di sa bi l i t y .” Id

. at 75 3. Rat he r th e IDEA’ s

ex ha us ti o n r e q u ire m en t ap pl ie s, reg ard le ss of la be ls or te rm s us ed
, on ly whe re th e

“ su bs ta nc e, or gr av am en , of th e pl ai nt iff ’s co m pl ai nt ” is th e de ni al of a FAPE. Id

. at
75 2.

-6

-The Nels on s pl ead ed th at th e Ch arl es Ci ty Dis tri ct “ fai le d to m ak e reas on ab le

acco m m od at io ns to en ab le C.N. to rece iv e ed uc at io n free fro m di sc riminat io n ba se d

up on he r di sa bi li ti es .” Eva lu at i ng th e cl ai m as a who le
, we th in k th e Nels on s in

su bs ta nc e ad va nc e a ch al le ng e to th e d en ia l o f a fre e ap pr op ria te pu bl ic ed uc at io n.

The co m pl ai nt ob jects to th e Ch arl es C i t y D i s tri ct ’s h an dl in g of C.N.’ s op en

en ro llm en t ap pl ic at io n. The Nels on s de ta il ho w th e sc ho ol ad m in is tra tor s en co ur ag ed
th e Nels on fam il y to ap pl y to on li ne ed uc at io n pr og ram s ou ts id e of th e Ch arl es Ci ty Dis tri ct , an d ho w th e Nels on fam il y rel ie d on th is en co ur ag em en t. The y no te th at th e

as si st an t pr in ci pa l he lp ed Mrs

. Nels on fax he r op en en ro ll m en t ap pl ic at io n to th e Cl ay to n Ri dg e Dis tri ct

. The y de ta il ho w th e Ch arl es Ci ty Dis tri ct ul ti m at el y de ni ed
C

. N

. ’s ap pl ic at io n de sp it e “ ta ci tl y ad m it t[i ng ] th at it s on -li ne ed uc at io na l

pr og ram m in g co ul d no t m eet C.N.’ s ne ed s.” F i n a l l y , t he y al le ge th at C.N. wa s no t in sch oo l wh il e h er o pe n en ro ll m en t ap pl ic at io n was pe nd in g be fo re t he Iowa Sta te
Bo ard of Edu cat io n, an d th at C.N

. “ m is s[ ed ] ou t on im po rta nt ed uc at io na l

op po rtu ni ti es th at can no t no w be reco ve red .” In es se nc e, th e Nels on s cl ai m th at C.N.

was de ni ed a FAPE du e to th e m is ha nd li ng of he r op en en ro ll m en t ap pl ic at io n by th e Ch arl es Ci ty Dis tri ct whe n it s own ed uc at io na l pr og ram m in g co ul d no t m eet he r

ne ed s.

In Fry
, th e co ur t po se d two hypo th et ic al qu es ti on s, th e an swe rs to whi ch m ay

se rv e as a “ cl ue to whe th er th e gr av am en of a co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t a sc ho ol co nc ern s th e de ni al of a FAPE, or i ns te ad ad dr es se s d is ab il it y -b as ed di sc riminat io n” :

Fi rs t, co ul d th e pl ai nt iff ha ve br ou gh t es se nt ia ll y th e sa m e cl ai m if t he al le ge d co nd uc t ha d oc cu rre d a t a p ub li c faci li ty th at was no t a

sc ho ol —s ay , a pu bl ic th eat er or li br ary? And se co nd
, co ul d an ad ul t at th e sc ho ol —s ay , an em

pl oyee o r vi si to r—h av e pr es se d es se nt ia ll y th e

sa m e gr ie va nc e?

. . . [ W ]hen th e an swe r is no , th en th e co m pl ai nt pr ob ab ly do es co nc ern a FAPE, ev en if it do es no t ex pl ic it ly sa y so ; fo r

-7

-th e FAPE req ui rem en t is al l th at ex pl ai ns why on ly a ch il d in th e sc ho ol

se tt in g (n ot an ad ul t in th at se tt in g or a ch il d in so m e ot he r) ha s a vi ab le cl ai m

.

Id

. at 7 56

.

In C.N.’ s ca se , t he an swe r to bo th of th es e qu es ti on s i s “ no .” C.N. cou ld no t ha v e s u e d a pu bl ic th eat er or li br ary fo r th e m is ha nd li ng of an ap pl ic at io n to op en

en ro ll in on li ne ed uc at io na l pr og ram m in g in a ne ig hb or in g sc ho ol di st ric t. Nor co ul d

an ad ul t em

pl oyee of a Ch arl es Ci ty sc ho ol ha ve br ou gh t es se nt ia ll y th e sa m e cl ai m

. The Nels on s ur ge us to ap pr oa ch th es e hypo th et ic al qu es ti on s at a hi gh er le ve l of

ge ne ral it y , arg ui ng th at C.N. co ul d su e a pu bl ic th e a t e r o r l ib rary fo r th e “ br ok en
pr om is e of

no n- di sc riminat or y

acce ss ” to th ei r se rv ic es , an d th at an ad ul t em pl oyee

co ul d br in g th e sa m e cl ai m ag ai ns t a sc ho ol

. Bu t Fry di d no t co nt em pl at e su ch a hi gh
le ve l of ge ne ral it y , se e id

. at 75 6- 57
, an d th e Nels on s’ ap pr oa ch —b y po si ti ng th at th e cl ai m is fo r a “ br ok en pr om is e of no n- di sc riminat or y acce ss ”—wo ul d as su m e th e

an swe r to th e v ery qu es ti on at i ss ue

.

The Nels on s in si st th at th ey are no t se ek in g rel ie f fo r th e de ni al of a FAPE, an d

em ph as iz e t h a t th ey ha ve ne ve r in vo ke d th e IDEA’ s fo rm al pr oc ed ur es in th e pa st

. To be su re, if th e Nels on s h a d i nv ok ed fo rm al IDEA pr oc ed ur es , th at wou ld be

“ st ro ng ev id en ce” t h a t t he ir su it wa s fo r th e de ni al of a FAPE, id

. at 75 7, bu t th e

co nv ers e is no t tru e. W he th er ex ha us ti on was req ui red st il l de pe nd s on th e gr av am en of th e Nel so ns ’ co m

pl ai nt

.

The Nels on s al so arg ue th at th e gr av am en o f t h e i r c om pl ai nt can no t be th e de ni al of a FAPE be cau se th e Io wa St at e Bo ard of Edu cat io n al read y award ed th em th e o nl y ed uc at io na l rem ed y th ey so ug ht —t he rig ht to en ro ll C.N. i n o nl in e cl as se s

ou ts id e of th e Ch arl es Ci ty Dis tri ct

. Bu t a pa ren t’s “ vo lu nt ary de ci si on to rem ov e [a

-8

-ch il d] fro m sc ho ol
, an d th us se ek on ly co m pe ns a t o r y a n d pu ni ti ve da m ag es rat he r th an co m pe ns at or y e d uc at io n se rv ic es , do es no t ex em pt he r fro m th e ex ha us ti on
req ui rem en t” or al te r th e gr av am en of th e co m pl ai nt

. M

c C a u l e y , 85 0 F.3 d at 95 0.
Bec au se th e Nels on s’ co m pl ai nt se ek s rel ie f av ai la bl e un de r th e IDEA—rel ie f fo r th e d e ni al of a FAPE—t he y m us t ex ha us t th ei r ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s un le s s a n

ex cep ti on to th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t ap pl ie s.

B.

The re are th ree ex cep ti on s to th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t in th e IDEA co nt ex t:

“ (1 ) fu ti li ty, (2 ) ‘ina bi li ty of th e ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s to pr ov id e ad eq ua te rel ie f,’

an d (3 ) ‘the es ta bl is hm en t of an ag en cy po li cy or pr act ic e of ge ne ral ap pl ic ab il it y th at is co nt rary to la w.’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Bai le y , 72 1 F.3 d at 59 4)

. If on e of th es e ex cep ti on s
ap pl ie s, th en a pl ai nt iff is rel ie ve d of th e ob l i g a t io n to ex ha us t he r ad m in is tra ti ve

rem ed ie s u nd er t he IDEA.

The Nels on s fir st co nt en d th at ex ha us ti on of ad m in i s t r at iv e rem ed ie s wou ld
ha ve be en fu ti le

. The y arg ue th at be cau se th e Ch arl es Ci ty Dis tri ct ne ve r id en ti fie d
C.N. as a ch il d in ne ed of sp eci al ed uc at io n se rv ic es , th e IDEA’ s ad mi n i s t rat iv e
pr oc ed ur es were no t av a i l a b l e t o th em

. The IDEA do es req ui re St at es to id en ti fy
, lo cat e, an d ev al ua te “ [a]ll ch il dr en wit h di sa bi li ti es res id in g in th e St at e

. . . who are in ne ed of sp eci al ed uc at io n an d rel at ed se rv ic es .” 20 U.S.C. § 14 12 (a)( 3) (A). The

st at ut e al so , ho wev er, ga ve th e Nels on s th e rig ht to fil e a co m pl ai nt “ wit h res pe ct to

an y m at te r rel at in g to th e id en ti fic at io n, ev al ua ti on , or e d u c a t i on al pl acement of [a
ch il d wit h a di sa bi li ty]
, or th e pr ov is io n of a free ap pr op ria te pu bl ic ed uc at io n to su ch
ch il d.” Id

. § 14 15 (b )(6 )(A); se e Io wa Adm in

. Co de r. 2 8 1

- 4 1

. 5 07 (1 ). Giv en th e Nels on s’ po si ti on th at C.N. was a ch il d wit h a di sa bi li ty who ne ed ed ed uc at i o na l

-9

-a c c o m

m od at io ns , no th in g pr ev en te d th e Nels on s fro m fil in g a co m pl ai nt a n d
in vo ki ng th e fu ll pa no pl y of p ro ced ur al saf

eg ua rd s av ai la bl e u nd er t he IDEA. 2

The ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc ed ur es av ai la bl e to th e Nels on s un de r th e IDEA were

se pa rat e an d di st in ct fro m th os e th at t h e y d i d i nv ok e aft er th e Ch arl es Ci ty Dis tri ct de ni e d C .N.’ s op en en ro ll m en t ap pl ic at io n. The Nels on s pu rs ue d a na rro w ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed y un de r Io wa Co de § 29 0.1
, whi ch al lo ws an ag gr ie ve d st ud en t

to ap pe al a de ci si on by the lo cal sch oo l b oa rd to de ny an u nt im el y op en en ro ll m en t

ap pl ic at io n in cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces

. Se e Iowa Co de § 2 82 .18 .5. Un de r th e IDEA,
ho wev er, th e Nels on s co ul d ha ve fil ed a du e pr oc es s co m pl ai nt ch al le ng in g th e St at e’s fai lu re to id en ti fy C.N. a s a ch il d wit h a di sa bi li ty and to pr ov id e he r wit h a FAPE. Se e Io wa Adm in

. Co de r. 28 1- 41 .50 7( 1)

. If C.N. were fo un d to ne ed sp eci al
ed uc at io n a nd rel at ed se rv ic es , t he St at e wou ld ha ve ha d 30 da y s to ho ld a m eet in g
to de ve lo p an IEP fo r C.N. Id

. r. 28 1- 41 .32 3( 3) (a). A te am as si gn ed to crea te an IEP

co ul d ha ve co ns id ered an d im pl em en te d a nu m

be r of sp eci al ed uc at io n an d rel at ed

se rv ic e s— in cl ud in g, bu t no t li m it ed to , en ro ll m en t in a pa rti cu la r on li ne
pr og ram —t ha t wou ld ha ve en ab le d C.N. to rece iv e a FAPE. Id

. r. 28 1- 4 1.3 20 (1 ).
The Nels on s co ul d ha ve in vo ke d th e IDEA’ s pr oc ed ur es as so on as th ey le arn ed th at th e Ch arl es Ci ty Dis tri ct ha d de ni ed C.N.’ s op en en ro ll m en t ap pl ic at io n, or whe ne ve r C.N.’ s d ep res si on an d P COS fi rs t b eg an to im pa ct he r ed uc at io n.

The Nels on s pr es en t th is po in t as an arg um en t fo r “ fu ti li ty” of ad m in is tra ti ve 2

rem ed ie s bu t it m ay be be tt er un de rs to od as a cl ai m ab ou t “ in ad eq ua te rel ie f,” be cau se th ey cl ai m th at th e ag en cy la ck ed le ga l au th or it y to gr an t rel ie f to a st ud en t in C.N.’ s po si ti on

. Se e McCa rt hy v. Mad ig an , 50 3 U.S. 14 0, 14 7 (1 99 2) (“ [A]n ad m in is tra ti ve

rem ed y m ay b e in ad eq ua te ‘becau se of so m e do ub t as to whe th er th e ag en cy was

em po wered to gr an t effe c t i v e r e li ef.’”) (q uo ti ng Gib so n v. Berr yh il l , 4 11 U.S. 5 64
, 57 5 n .14 (19 73 )).

-1 0-Seco nd
, th e Nels on s em ph as iz e th at th ey

are s eek in g m on ey

da m ag es , whi ch

are n o t a va il ab le un de r th e IDEA, an d arg ue th at th ei r ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s are th us in ad eq ua te

. Thi s po in t is no t pe rs ua si ve

. “ [T]he IDEA’ s ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t

rem ai ns th e ge ne ral ru le
, reg ard le ss of whe th er th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc es s of fers th e
pa rti cu la r type of rel ie f th at is be in g so ug ht .” McCa ul ey , 8 5 0 F

. 3 d at 95 0 (q uo ti ng Bai le y , 72 1 F.3 d at 59 5)

. As ot he rs ha ve ex pl ai ne d, if th e Nels on s’ po si ti on were to

pr ev ai l, th en “ f

ut ur e li ti ga nt s co ul d av oi d th e ex ha us ti on req ui rem en t si m pl y by

as ki ng fo r rel ie f th at ad m in is tra ti ve au th or it ie s co ul d no t gr an t.” D.G. ex re l. N.B. v. Ala ch ua Ct

y. Sc h. Bd.
, 84 F.3 d 13 76
, 13 79 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ) ( p er cu ria m ). The
ID E A ’ s ad

m ini str at ive pr oc ed

ur es , m or eo ve r, co ul d ha ve affo rd ed th e Nels on s at le as t

so m e of th e rel ie f th at th ey req ue st ed

. The st at ut e pe rm it s th e reco ve ry of at to rn ey ’s
fees an d co st s, 20 U.S. C

. § 14 15 (i) (3 )(B)
, an d co m pe ns at or y ed uc at io n or rei m bu rs em en t fo r ed uc at io na l s erv ic es th at a sc ho ol di st ric t s ho ul d h av e p ro vi de d.
Bai le y , 72 1 F .3d at 5 93 -9 4.

The Nels on s cou nt er th at m on ey da m ag es are no t si m pl y th ei r pr efer red fo rm of rel ie f, bu t th e on ly fo rm of rel ie f th at co ul d red res s C.N.’ s in juri es

. The y no te th at C.N. al read y rece iv ed he r ed uc at io na l rem ed y whe n th e Io wa St at e Bo ard ru le d in he r fav or , so sh e no w co ul d be ne fit on ly fro m da m ag es fo r he r di m in is he d earn in g
cap aci ty an d th e em ot io na l di st res s th at sh e al le g e d l y s u f f ered as a res ul t of th e Ch arl es Ci ty Dis tri ct ’s pa st co nd uc t. In de te rm in in g whe th er a pl ai nt iff was req ui red

to ex ha us t rem ed ie s, ho wev er, we m us t co ns id er th e st ud en t’s st at us at th e ti m e of th e ch al le ng ed co nd uc t whe n th e pa ren ts co ul d ha ve in vo ke d ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc ed ur es

. A co nt rary ap pr oa ch
, al lo win g a pl ai nt iff to fo reg o ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s an d th en

su e la te r fo r da m ag e s a f

te r fin is hi ng sc ho ol
, “ wou ld fru st rat e th e IDEA’ s care fu ll y craf te d pr oc es s fo r th e pr om

pt res ol ut io n of gr ie va nc es th ro ug h in te ract io n be twee n
pa ren ts of di sa bl ed ch il dr en an d th e ag en ci es res po ns ib le f o r ed uc at in g th os e ch il dr en .” Po l e r a v. Bd. of Edu c. of New bu rg h Enl ar ge d Ci ty Sc h. Dis t ., 28 8 F.3 d
47 8, 4 90 (2d Cir . 20 02 ).

-1 1-The Nels on s di d no t pu rs ue rel ie f un de r th e IDEA du rin g th e su m m er of 20 14

or th e 20 14 -2 01 5 sc ho ol y ear whe n th ey were di ss at is fie d wit h th e ed uc at io n of fere d by th e Ch arl es Ci ty Dis tri ct

. Bec au se th ey di d no t in vo ke th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc es s,

we can on ly sp ecu la te ab ou t ed uc at io na l op po rtu ni ti es th at m ig ht ha ve be en av ai la bl e
to pr ov id e C.N. wit h a free ap pr op ria te pu bl ic ed uc at io n. Und er th e st at ut e, ho wev er, it is th e res po ns ib il it y of pa ren ts to br in g th ei r gr ie va nc e in th at m an ne r if th ey wis h

to br in g a la wsu it al le gi ng th e de ni al of a FAPE. Fru st rat in g th ou gh it m ay see m to

pa ren ts st ru gg li ng to m an ag e a di ffi cu lt ed uc at io na l si tu at io n fo r a ch il d wit h sp eci al

ne ed s, th e la w do es no t al lo w th em to fo reg o th e ad m in is tra ti ve pr oc es s an d se ek la te r
to reco ve r da m ag es to co m pe ns at e fo r th ei r own sel f-h el p re m ed ie s.

* * *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 2-