# 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- 32 98

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ja cq ui e Alb rig ht , As Par en t an d Nex t Be st Fri en d o f Ch il d Do e

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Mo un ta in Hom e Sch oo l Di st ric t; Debb ie Atk in so n, Di rect or of S pe ci al Edu cat io n;

Su sa nn e Bel k, BC BA Co ns ul ta nt

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

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Har ris on

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 13 , 20 18
Fi le d: Ju ne 12 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

J acq ui e Alb rig ht al le ge s th at he r da ug ht er Ch il d Doe

, a y ou ng st ud en t w i t h

au ti sm an d si gn ifi can t in te ll ect ua l de fic it s, was no t pr ov id ed a free ap pr op ria te pu bl ic

ed uc at io n (FAPE) by Mo un ta in H om e Sch oo l Dis tri ct (th e Dis tri ct ), as req ui red by

th e In di vi du al s with Dis ab il it ie s Edu cat io n Act (IDEA or Act)

, 20 U.S.C. § 1 40 0 et

se q

. W he n he r ad m in is tra ti ve ch al le ng e was reject ed

, Alb rig ht ap pe al ed th at de ci si onin fed eral di st ric t co ur t an d br ou g h t ad di ti on al cl ai m s fo r co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns

un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

, di sa bi li ty di sc riminat io n and ret al ia ti on un de r § 5 04 of th e
Reh ab il it at i o n Act, di sa bi li ty di sc riminat io n un de r Tit le II of th e Am eri can s wit h

Dis ab il it ie s Act (ADA), an d vi ol at io ns of Ark an sa s la w. The di st ric t co ur t affi rm ed 1

th e ad m in is tra ti ve d e c is io n, gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to th e Dis tri ct on th e

rem ai ni ng fed era l cl ai m s, an d the n de cl ine d to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er
Alb rig ht ’s st at e la w cla im s. We affir m

.

Ch il d Doe ha s b e e n e du cat ed wit hi n th e Dis tri ct fro m ki nd erg art en to th e

pr es en t in acco rd an ce wit h an In di vi du al iz ed Edu cat io n Pl an (IEP) fo rm ul at ed

pu rs ua nt to th e IDEA. The IEP se ts fo rth th e ed uc at io na l acco m m od at io ns ap pr ov ed

fo r Ch il d Doe

, as well as a be ha vi or in te r ve nt io n pl an (BIP ) to ad dr es s an y

pr ob le m at ic be ha vi or s. An IEP te am pe rio di cal ly di sc us se s an d rev is es Ch il d Doe ’s

IEP as ne ed ed

. Alb rig h t a n d ap pe ll ee Su sa nn e Bel k, a Bo ard Cert ifi ed Beh av io r

Ana lyst em

pl oyed as a co n s u l t a n t by th e Dis tri ct du rin g th e rel ev an t pe rio d, are

m em be rs of Ch il d Doe ’s IE P te am

. The hi gh ly co nt en ti ou s rel at io ns hi p be twee n
Alb rig ht an d th e Dis tri ct

, co m pl ic at ed fu rth er b y A l b rig ht ’s em pl oym en t wit h th e
Dis tri ct

, ha s m ad e it di ffi cu lt fo r Alb rig ht an d th e rem ai nd er of th e IEP te am to ag ree

on m an y asp ect s o f Ch il d Do e’s IEP.

Alb rig ht ha s fil ed fo ur du e pr oc es s co m pl ai nt s ag ai ns t th e Dis tri ct ch al le ng in g
Ch il d Doe ’s ed uc at io n. The fir st two co m pl ai nt s were res ol ve d by se tt le m en t

ag r e e m en ts in Aug us t 20 12 an d Mar ch 20 14

. On Octo be r 20

, 20 14

, earl y in Ch il d

Doe ’s fou rth -g rad e y ear, Al br ig ht fil ed th e d ue pr oc es s co m pl ai nt at is su e, al le gi ng

th at th e Dis tri ct ha d de ni ed Ch il d Doe a FAPE be twee n Nov em be r 15

, 20 13

, an d

Octo be r 17 , 2 01 4. Eve nt s a f t e r O ct ob er 17 , 2 01 4, are th e su bjec t of a se pa rat e du e

pr oc es s co m

pl ai nt

.

The Hon or ab le Tim ot hy L. Bro ok s, Uni te d S t a t es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-Afte r Alb rig ht fil ed th e th ird du e p ro ces s co m pl ai nt , th e p art ie s p ro ceed ed to

an el ev en -d ay he ari ng he ld be twee n Mar ch an d Sep te m be r of 20 15

. A he ari ng of

fic er

em pl oyed by th e Ark an sa s Dep art m en t o f Edu cat io n pr es id ed an d he ard te st im on y
fro m w i t n e s s e s , in cl ud in g Alb rig ht

, Bel k, an d an ex pe rt hi red by Alb rig ht

. The

he ari ng of

fic er t h e r e a f

t e r is su ed a fo rty-pag e de ci si on se tt in g fo rth fin di ng s of fact

an d co nc l u s i on s of la w. Rel ev an t he re, th e he ari ng of fic er ad dr es se d whe th er
Alb rig ht was de ni ed th e op po rtu ni ty to pa rti ci pa te in de ve lo pi ng th e I EP

, whe th er
Ch il d Doe b e n e fit te d acad em ic al ly fro m th e IEP, an d whe th er th e BIP ad eq ua te ly

ad dr es se d Ch il d Do e ’s be ha vi or s or ex acer ba te d th em by pe rm it ti ng th e us e of

se ns or y in te gr at io n t ech ni qu es

.

The he ari ng of

fic er fo un d th at Alb rig ht ha d no t be en de ni ed th e op po rtu ni ty to

pa rti ci pa te in th e IEP pr oc es s, ci ti ng th e fo ll owi ng fact s: Dur in g th e pe rio d in

qu es ti on , Alb rig ht at te n d e d al l IEP co nf eren ces un ti l Sep te m

be r 20 14

, whe n sh e
ch os e no t to at te nd a m eet in g, an d th ere was no ev id en ce t o su bs ta nt ia te Alb rig ht ’s

cl ai m s th at ot he r IEP co nf eren ces were he ld in he r ab se nc e. Alt ho ug h th e Dis tri ct di d

no t ag ree to or sa ti sf

y al l of Alb rig ht ’s req ue st s reg ard in g C h i ld Doe ’s ed uc at io n,

th ere w a s n o e vi de nc e in di cat in g th at th e Dis tri ct ha d ha m pe red Alb rig ht ’s act iv e

p a r t i c ip at io n in de ve lo pi ng Ch il d Doe ’s IEP. Hun dr ed s of pa ge s of em ai ls an d

tra ns cri pt s of IEP m eet in gs de m on st rat e th at Alb rig ht act iv el y pa rti ci pa te d in th e IEP

pr oc es s.

The he ari ng of

fic er al so fo un d th at th e IEP it se lf was wor ki ng

. Mo re

sp eci fic al ly, he fo un d th at in li gh t of Ch il d Doe ’s si gn ifi can t di sa bi li ti es , th e ev id en ce
sh owe d t ha t t he IEP di d p ro vi de he r wit h ed uc at io na l be ne fit s. The h eari ng off ic er

al so fo un d, ho wev er, th at Alb rig ht be li ev ed th at Ch il d Doe was cap ab le of gr e a t er
acad em ic ach ie ve m en ts th an in di cat ed by th e as se ss m en ts

. Nev ert he le ss , he cred it ed

Bel k’s te st im o n y t h at Ch il d Doe ha d sh own acad em ic im pr ov em en t du rin g th e
rel ev an t p eri od

.

-3

-To co m pl ic at e m at te rs , Ch il d Doe ’s di sa bi li ty was or ig in al ly id en ti fie d as

in te ll ect ua l de fic it s, bu t was ch an ge d to au ti sm du rin g th e pe rio d in qu es ti on

. Des pi te

th e ch an ge d d i a g n o si s, th e he ari ng of fic er fo un d th at th e BIP in pl ace at th e ti m e
ad dr es s e d th e sa m e m al ad ap ti ve be ha vi or s id en ti fie d by th e ps y ch ol og is t who ha d

di ag no se d Ch il d Doe wit h au ti sm

. Alb rig ht ’s e x p e r t te st ifi ed th at th e BIP was

in ad eq ua te

, bu t th e he ari ng of fi c e r f o u n d th at hi s te st im on y was refu te d by th e
Dis tri ct ’s beh av io r da ta an d B el k’s t es ti m on y reg ard in g h er u nd ers ta nd in g o f Ch il d

Doe ’s beh av io rs

.

In s u m, t h e he ari ng of

fic er de te rm in ed th at aft er “ rev ie win g th e el ic it ed

te st im on y an d th e ev id en ce in th is cas e it is cl ear th at th e Dis tri ct at te m pt ed to fo cu s

on wha t th ey be li ev ed to be th e un iq ue ne ed s of [Chi ld Doe ] ev en pr io r to ch an gi ng

th e pr im ary ha nd ic ap pi ng co nd it io n fro m in te ll ect ua l de fic it s to au ti sm .” The he ari ng

of fic er co nc lu de d th at th e Dis tri ct “ reco gn iz ed an d acce pt ed th e ad di ti on al ch al le ng e

of ad dr es si ng th e m al ad ap ti ve be ha vi or s [Ch il d Doe ] ex hi bi te d as a co ns eq ue nc e,

m or e li ke ly th an no t of he r au ti sm , a s well as he r in te ll ect ua l de fic it s an d th e
ch al le ng es th at sh e pr es en te d to th e ed uc at or s,” an d it th us d i d n o t d e n y Ch il d Doe

a FAPE.

Alb rig ht ap pe al ed th e he ari ng of fic er’s de ci si on in fed eral di st ric t co ur t (Co un t I) an d br ou gh t se ve ral rel at ed c l a i ms un de r fed eral an d st at e la w (Co un ts II-VI)

, whi ch were su bs eq ue nt ly bi fu rcat ed

. In he r IDEA ap pe al

, Alb rig ht s p eci fic al ly

co nt es te d th ree of th e he ari ng o f f i c e r’s co nc lu si on s: th at sh e ha d pa rti ci pa te d

m ean in gf ul ly in th e IEP pr oc es s, tha t it ha d be en un ne ces sa ry to de ve lo p a ne w BIP

fo r Ch il d Doe

, an d th at th e Dis tri ct ha d us ed ev id en ce-b as ed pr act ic es in Ch il d Doe ’s

IEP. The di st ric t co ur t de ci de d th e ap pe al on th e br ie fs

, affi rmi n g th e he ari ng

of fic er’s de ci si o n o n e a ch is su e, an d “ who le he art ed ly ag ree[ in g]” wit h th e he ari ng

of fic er’s de te rm in at io n th at Alb rig ht ha d pa rti ci pa te d m ean in gf ul ly in th e IE P

pr oc es s. D. Ct

. Ord er of Ju ly 5, 20 17

, at 6 [h erei na fte r Ju ly 5 Ord er]. The co ur t al so

fo un d th at “ th e BIP th at was al read y in pl ac e w a s w o r k i ng well .” Id

. Fi na ll y , th e

-4

-co ur t de te rm in ed th at it “ ha [d ] no t fo un d an y ev id en ce in th e reco rd th at se ns or y

in te gr at io n tre at m en t is no t ba se d on pe e r

- r e v i e w e d res earc h, no r

. . . th at th e
Dis tri ct ’s us e of se ns or y in te gr at io n tre at m en t so m eh ow pr ev en te d th e Dis tri ct fro m

ut il iz in g s erv ic es th at are b as ed on pe er-r ev ie wed res earc h.” Id. at 8.

Alb rig ht m ov ed to al te r or am en d th e jud gm en t, as se rti ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t

ha d m ad e m an ife st erro rs o f l a w o r f a ct

. The co ur t de ni ed Alb rig ht ’s m ot io n,

co nc lu di ng t h a t a ny erro rs it ha d m ad e di d no t affe ct it s di sp os it io n an d th at

Alb rig ht ’s m ot io n rai se d ne w arg um en ts th at sh e ha d no t rais ed in he r in it ia l ap pe al

br ie f.

At th e cl os e of di sc ov ery, th e Dis tri ct m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on Co un ts

II th ro ug h VI. Und er lo cal ru le s, Alb rig ht ’s res po ns e was du e fo ur te en da y s aft er th e
Dis tri ct ’s m ot io n was fil ed on Apr il 28

. Alb rig ht m ov ed fo r le av e to fil e an am en de d

co m pl ai nt on M a y 4

. The ne xt da y , sh e req ue st ed an ex te ns io n of ti m e to fil e he r 2

su m m ary jud gm en t res po ns e, c o nt en di ng th at th e m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t

wou ld be m oo t if th e co ur t al lo wed he r to fil e an am en de d co m pl ai nt

. The co ur t

de ni ed he r m ot io n fo r an ex te ns io n on May 7. On May 10

, Alb rig ht req ue st ed

an ot he r ex te ns io n, ass ert in g th at he r co un se l had ob li ga ti on s in ot he r cas es an d th at

he r co un se l wou ld ne ed to at te nd to fam il y m ed ic al is su es ov er th e fo ll owi ng week s.
The co ur t den ie d th e m ot io n t ha t s am e d ay . On May 22

, te n days aft er the de ad li ne

ha d pa ss ed

, Alb rig ht be ga n fil in g he r su m m ary jud gm en t res po ns e, acco m pa ni ed by

a m ot io n t o a ccep t h er re sp on se ou t o f ti m e.

In it s su m m ary jud gm en t or de r, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Alb rig ht ’s ou t-o f-t im e

fil in g req ue st

, st ru ck he r fil in gs fro m th e reco rd

, an d gr an te d th e Dis tri ct ’s m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t. In he r m ot io n to al te r or am en d th e jud gm en t

, A l b r i g ht

co nt en de d th at th e co ur t ha d ap pl ie d th e in co rrec t st an da rd whe n ev al ua ti ng he r ou tThe di st ric t co ur t d en ie d t hi s m ot io n a s m oo t i n i ts Ju ly 5 ord er. 2

-5

-of

-ti m e m ot io n. Alt ho ug h th e co ur t ag reed th at it ha d ap pl ie d th e wro ng st an da rd

, it

co nc lu de d th at th e m ot io n fai le d un de r th e co rrec t st an da rd

. Alb rig ht th erea fte r fil ed

th is ap pe al

.

Alb rig ht fir st ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r affi rm in g th e he ari ng of fic er’s

de te rm in at io n th at Ch il d Doe was pr ov id ed a FAPE. W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er th e
Dis tri ct pr ov id ed Ch il d Doe wit h a FAPE. See I.Z.M. v. Ro se m ou nt -Ap pl e Vall ey

Eag an Pu b. Sch

., 86 3 F.3 d 96 6, 97 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). In so do in g, we m us t affo rd du e weig ht to th e ou tc om e of th e ad m in is tr a t i v e p r o c eed in gs , se e id

., an d acce pt th e
di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s un le ss th ey are cl earl y erro ne ou s, se e Gil l v. Co lu m bi a

93 Sch

. Dis t., 21 7 F.3 d 10 27

, 10 35 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). “ Our du ty is to i n te rp ret an d

ap pl y th e la w, no t to su bs ti tu te ou r own no ti on s of so un d ed uc at io na l po li cy fo r th os e

of th e sc ho ol au th or it ie s whi ch we rev ie w.” Sp eci al Sch

. Dis t. No. 1, Mi nn eap ol is

Pu b. Sch

. v. R.M.M

. ex rel

. O.M., 86 1 F.3 d 76 9, 77 1- 72 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (cl ean ed up ).

The IE P is “ th e cen te rp ie ce of th e [IDEA]’ s ed uc at io n de li ve ry syste m fo r
di sa bl ed ch il dr en .” Hon ig v. Doe

, 48 4 U.S. 30 5, 31 1 (1 98 8)

. Alb rig ht as se rts th at

th e Dis tri ct de ni ed Ch il d Doe a FAPE by im pl em en ti ng an IEP th at was in ad eq ua te

, in no sm al l pa rt be cau se Alb rig ht he rs el f was de ni ed th e op po rtu ni ty to m ean in gf ul ly

pa rti ci pa te in th e fo rm at io n pr oc es s. The di st ric t co u rt an d he ari ng of fic er th ou gh t

ot he rwis e. Our in de pe nd en t rev ie w of th e reco rd le ad s us to co nc lu de th at Alb rig ht

ha s fa il ed to sh ow t ha t Ch il d Do e’s IEP was in ad eq ua te

.

“ To m eet it s su bs ta nt iv e ob li ga ti on un de r th e IDEA, a sc ho ol m us t of fer an IEP

reas on ab ly cal cu la te d to en ab le a ch il d t o mak e pr og res s ap pr op ria te in li gh t of th e
ch il d’s ci rcu m st an ces .” End rew F. ex rel

. Jo se ph F. v. Dou gl as Ct y

. Sch

. Dis t. RE– 1,

13 7 S. Ct

. 98 8, 99 9 (2 01 7) . “ The Act co nt em pl at es th at th is fact -in te ns iv e ex erci se
wil l be in fo rm ed no t on ly by th e ex pe rti se of sc ho ol of fic ia ls

, bu t al so by th e in pu t of

th e ch il d’s pa ren ts or gu ard ia ns .” Id

. “ Any rev ie w of an IEP m us t ap pr eci at e th at th e

-6

-qu es ti on is whe th er th e IEP is re as on ab le

, no t whe th er th e co ur t reg ard s it as id eal .”

Id

.

At th e du e pr oc es s he ari ng , an d ag ai n be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, Alb rig ht arg ue d

th at th e IEP’s be ha vi or in te rv en ti on pl an was no t wor ki ng

. Sh e as se rte d th at th e BIP

in cl ud ed th e us e of ps eu do sc ie nt ifi c pr act ic es pr oh ib it ed u n d e r t h e IDEA, su ch as

“ se ns or y in te gr at io n te ch ni qu es ,” an d th at th e BIP req ui red rev is io n in li gh t of Ch il d

Doe ’s ap pa ren tl y es cal at in g p a t t e rn s of be ha vi or

. Quo ti ng Bel k’s te st im on y , th e
di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at “ th e BIP th at was al read y in pl ace was wor ki ng well .” Ju ly

5 Order

, at 6. Alb rig ht arg ue s th at th is fin di ng was cl earl y erro ne ou s in li gh t o f he r

ex pe rt wit ne ss ’s te st im on y th at th e pl an in pl ace wou ld no t im pr ov e Ch il d Doe ’s

be ha vio rs

. As pr oo f of Ch il d Doe ’s wor se ni ng be ha vi or s, Alb rig ht no te s th at be tween

Ja nu ary 20 13 an d Octo be r 20 14 th e BIP was up da te d to in cl ud e a rev is ed an d sl ig ht ly

lo ng er l is t o f “ pr ob le m

be ha vi or s.”

The he a rin g of

fic er fo un d Bel k’s te st im on y cred ib le

, gi vi ng he r te st im on y

gr eat er weig ht th an th at of Alb rig ht ’s ex pe rt. See Brad le y ex r e l

. B rad le y v. Ark

. Dep t. of Edu c., 44 3 F.3 d 96 5, 97 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ W e reco gn iz e th at th e he ari ng

of fic ers ‘had an op po rtu ni ty t o ob se rv e th e d e mea n o r of th e wit ne ss es ,’ an d we are

m in df ul th at it is no t th e pl ace of th e co ur ts to ‘sub st it ut e [o ur ] own no ti on s of so un d

ed uc at io na l po li cy fo r th os e of th e sc ho ol au th or it ie s th at [we] revi ew.” (alt erat io ns

in o rig in al ) (q uo ti ng St rawn v. Mo . S ta te Bd . o f Edu c., 21 0 F.3 d 95 4, 95 8 (8 th Ci r.

20 00 ))). The he ari ng of

fic er an d di st ric t co ur t bo th cred it ed Bel k’s te st im on y th at sh e
be li ev ed th e IEP was wor ki ng

. The li st s of pr ob le m be ha vi or s al on e do no t co nt rad ic t

Bel k’s te st im on y , be cau se th ey do no t in cl ud e im po rta nt in fo rm at io n, su ch as th e
be ha vi or s’ freq ue nc y , th at wou ld be rel ev an t in de te rm i n i n g w h et he r Ch il d Doe ’s

be ha vi or was wor se ni ng

. Nor do th e li st s th em se lv es pu rp o rt to be ex ha us ti ve
ch ro ni cl es of Ch il d Doe ’s be ha vi or s. In li gh t of Bel k’s te st im on y , whi ch was ba se d

on he r ex te ns iv e ex pe ri e n c e w o r ki ng wit h Ch il d Doe

, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t

-7

-co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in fin di ng th at th e BIP was “ wor ki ng we l l ” o r t h a t it was

ad eq ua te

.

Alb rig ht al so arg ue s th at se ns or y in te gr at io n te ch ni q u e s are ps eu do sc ie nt ifi c

tre at m en ts th at vi o l a te th e IDEA’ s req ui rem en t th at se rv ic es be “ ba se d on pe errev ie wed res earc h to th e ex te nt pr act ic ab le .” 20 U.S.C. § 14 14 (d )(1 )(A)(i )(IV). The

di st ric t co ur t fo un d no ev id en ce “ th at se ns or y in te gr at io n tre at m en t i s no t ba se d on

pe er-r ev ie wed res earc h, no r [d id ] it f[i nd ] an y ev id en ce in th e reco rd th at th e
Dis tri ct ’s us e of se ns or y in te gr at io n tre at m en t so m eh ow pr ev en te d th e Dis tri ct fro m

ut il iz in g se rv ic es th at are ba se d on pe er-r ev ie wed res earc h.” Ju ly 5 Ord er, at 8.

Alb rig ht co nt en ds th at th is fin di ng was cl earl y erro ne ou s, ag ai n ci ti ng th e te st im on y
of he r ex pe rt wit ne ss an d as se rti ng th at “ th e op po rtu ni ty co st of th e Dis tri ct ’s de ci si on

t o u s e a ps eu do sc ie nt ifi c pr act ic e is th at it fo reg oe s us e of ot he r, pe er-r ev ie wed

tre at m en ts .” App el la nt ’s Br. 19

. Alb rig ht do e s no t ob ject to th e di st ric t co ur t’s

fin di ng th at “ it is ab un da nt ly cl ear fro m th e rec o r d t ha t th e Dis tri ct m ad e ex te ns iv e

us e of ev id en ce-b as ed pr act ic es to ed uc at e Ch il d Doe .” Ju ly 5 Ord er , at 7. Eve n

pu tt in g as id e th e qu es ti on whe th er se ns or y in te gr at io n te ch ni qu es are ba se d on pe errev ie wed res earc h, th e di st ric t co ur t’s ot he r fin di ng s, whi ch are no t cl earl y erro ne ou s,

are su ffi ci en t to refu te Alb rig ht ’s cl ai m

. Alo ng si de th e “ ex te ns iv e” us e of pe erre viewed pr act ic es , th e us e of se ns or y in te gr at io n te ch ni qu es , whi ch were sp eci fic al ly

reco mm en de d by Ch il d Doe ’s oc cu pa ti on al th erap is t, di d no t de ny Ch il d Doe a

FAPE. Cf. Brad le y , 44 3 F.3 d at 97 5 (“ [T]he Act do es no t req ui re ‘the fu rn is hi ng of

ev ery sp eci al se rv ic e ne ces sa ry to m ax im iz e each h a n d i c a pp ed ch il d’s po te nt ia l.’”
(q uo ti ng Bd . of Ed uc . v. Ro wley, 458 U.S. 17 6, 1 99 (19 82 ))).

Alb rig ht ne xt arg ue s t ha t t he IEP’s fai lu re t o pr od uc e an y acad em ic pr og res s
de ni ed Ch il d Doe a FAPE. Alb rig ht no te s t ha t d es pi te be in g i n fo ur th gra de , Chi ld

Doe was st il l in st ru ct ed on ki nd erg art en -le ve l s u b je ct m at te r. Sh e al so arg ue s th at

Ch il d Doe ’s sc or e in IQ te st in g h ad de crea se d be twee n 20 10 an d 20 14

. As a

pr el im in ary m at te r, Alb rig ht ’s du e pr oc es s co m pl ai nt co nc ern s th e pe rio d be twee n

-8

-Nov em

be r 20 13 an d Octo be r 20 14

. Evi de nc e pe rta in in g to Ch il d Doe ’s pe rfo rm an ce

ov er a fo ur -y ear pe rio d is th us ov erb ro ad an d do es no t es ta bl is h th at sh e was de ni ed

a FAPE dur in g th e pe rio d in qu es ti on

. Bel k tes ti fie d th at Ch il d Do e ap pe ared to be

im pr ov in g acad em ic al ly. The Dis tri ct su pp or ts he r te st im on y wit h st an da rd iz ed te st s
adm ini ste red pe rio di cal ly th ro ug ho ut 20 14 th at sh ow Ch il d Doe ’s pr og res s du rin g th e

pe rio d at is su e. The te st in g rev eal ed th at Ch il d Doe ’s sc or es in Eng li sh

, Rea di ng , an d

M a t h i n crea se d be twee n Ja nu ary 20 14 an d Aug us t 20 14

. Alt ho ug h th e te st sc o r e s

va rie d wit h i n t h e p eri od

, in to ta l th ey de m on st rat e acad em ic im pr ov em en t. See

Brad le y , 44 3 F.3 d at 97 3 (u ph ol di ng fact ua l fin di ng of acad em ic im pr ov em en t ba se d

on st an da rd iz ed te st sc or es ). Test s on fir st -g rad e su bjec t mat te r ad m in is te red in

Octo be r 20 14

, ho wev er, rev eal ed th at Ch il d Doe was no t y et pr ep ared to ad va nc e to

m or e co m

pl ex m at eri al

.

The he ari ng of

fic er ob se rv ed in hi s de ci si on th at Alb rig ht be li ev ed Ch il d Doe

was cap ab le of gr eat er acad em ic ach ie ve m en ts th an th e as se ss m en ts in di cat ed

. The

di st ric t co ur t ech oe d th at se nt im en t, fin di ng th at “ [i]t is al so un do ub te dl y tru e th at Ms

. Alb rig ht di sa gr ees wit h ot he r m em be rs of Ch il d Doe ’s IEP te am ab ou t w h a t C h i l d

Doe ’s tru e acad em ic po te nt ia l is .” Ju ly 5 Ord er, at 9. H o wev er reg ret ta bl e th e
di sa gr eem en t be twee n Alb rig ht an d th e rem ai nd er of th e IEP te am on th is m at te r, th e

IDEA req ui res th a t a n IEP be “ reas on ab ly cal cu la te d to en ab le a ch il d to m ak e

pr og res s ap pr op ria te in li gh t of th e ch il d’s ci rcu m st an ces .” End rew F., 13 7 S. Ct

. at

99 9. The “ IDEA do es no t req ui re th at a sc ho ol ei th er m ax im iz e a st ud en t’s po te nt ia l

or pro vi de th e b es t p os si bl e ed uc at io n a t p ub li c ex pe ns e.” Fo rt Zu m walt Sch . Dis t.

v. Cl y ne s, 11 9 F.3 d 60 7, 61 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). Bas ed on th e res ul ts of th e Dis tri ct ’s

te st in g, Ch il d Doe m ad e pr og res s in a cu rri cu lu m th at was ap pr op ria te in li gh t of he r
ci rcu m st an ces

.

Fi na ll y , Alb rig ht co nt en ds th at sh e was de ni ed th e op po rtu ni ty to m ean in gf ul ly

pa rti ci pa te in th e fo rma t i o n o f Ch il d Doe ’s IEP. “ The Act co nt em pl at es th at [IEP

dr aft in g] wil l be in fo rm ed no t on ly by th e ex pe rti se of sc ho ol of fic ia ls

, bu t al so by th e

-9

-in pu t of th e ch il d’s pa ren ts or gu ard ia ns .” End re w F ., 1 37 S. Ct . a t 99 9. Alt ho ug h

p a r e n t s ge ne ral ly m

us t be affo rd ed th e op po rtu ni ty to pa rti ci pa te in ev ery IE P

m eet in g, a m eet in g m ay be co nd uc te d wit ho ut th em “ if t h e pu bl ic ag en cy is un ab le

to co nv in ce th e pa ren ts th at th ey sh ou ld at te nd .” 34 C.F.R. § 30 0.3 22 (d ) (2 00 6) ; se e

Lath ro p R-II Sch

. Dis t. v. Gray

, 61 1 F.3 d 41 9, 42 7 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 0 )

. A s th e di st ric t

co ur t fo un d, vo lu m in ou s ev id en ce in th e reco rd de m on st rat es Alb rig ht ’s ex te ns iv e

in vo lv em en t th ro ug ho ut th e IEP pr oc es s. Alb rig ht arg ue s, ho wev er, th at th e IEP te am

co ns pi red to ho ld an IEP m eet in g wit ho ut he r on Sep te m be r 15

, 20 14

. Bu t as th e

reco rd cl earl y rev eal s, Alb rig ht ch os e no t to at te nd th e Sep te m be r 15 m eet in g de sp it e

th e Dis tri c t ’s e f

f or ts to pe rs ua de he r to at te nd

. Mo reo ve r, to th e ex te nt th ere was a

te ch ni cal vi ol at io n of th e Act’s no ti ce req ui rem en ts

, “ it di d no t affe ct th e IEP s or

ot he rwis e de pr iv e [Ch il d Doe ] of e d u c a t i o na l be ne fit .” Id

. The Dis tri ct di d no t

pr ev en t Al br ig ht ’s act iv e p art ic ip at io n i n t he IEP pr oc es s. 3

In su m , “ a pr of

ou nd ly to xi c la ck of tru st ” be twee n Alb rig ht an d th e Dis tri ct ha s

ren de red it ne arl y im

po ss ib le fo r th e pa rti es to ag ree on a n ed uc at io n pr og ram be st

su it ed fo r Ch il d Doe ’s ne ed s, de sp it e bo th pa rties ’ se em in gl y earn es t de si re to pr ov id e jus t th at

. Ju ly 5 Ord er, at 9. Non et he le ss , ha vi ng fo un d no cl ear erro r in th e di st ric t

co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s an d ha vi ng gi ve n du e weig ht to th e he ari ng of fic er’s

cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns , we con cl ud e th at Ch il d Do e was no t d en ie d a FAPE.

Alt ho ug h Alb rig ht al so ap pe ars to arg ue th at th e Dis tri ct wit hh el d in fo rm at io n 3

fro m he r, sh e d oe s n ot po in t t o a nyth in g i n t he reco rd to whi ch sh e was en ti tl ed bu t whi ch was or ig in al ly wit hh el d fro m he r. Sh e se em s to arg ue in st ead th at th e Dis tri ct fai le d to ke ep ad eq ua te reco rd s reg ard in g Ch il d Doe ’s be ha vi or , th us de nyin g he r

acce ss to in fo rm at io n. See, e.g ., App el la nt ’s B r. 19 (“ Thi s cau ti on po in ts to th e Dis tri ct ’s real fai lu re – it ne ve r ga th ered an y da ta to ev al u a t e th e effe ct iv en es s of

se ns or y in te gr at io n or th e Ja nu ary 20 13 BIP.” ). In li gh t of ou r co nc lu si on th at Ch il d

Doe ’s IEP was ad eq ua te

, th e Dis tri ct ’s reco rd -k eep in g pr act ic es di d no t res ul t in th e de ni al of a FAPE.

-1 0-A lbr ight ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of he r m ot io ns fo r ex te ns io ns of tim e

an d he r m ot io n to acce pt he r su m m ary jud gm en t res po ns e ou t o f t i m e. A di st ric t

co ur t ha s “ co ns id erab le di sc ret io n” to gr an t or de ny a pa rty’ s m ot io n fo r an ex te ns io n

of ti m e to fil e a su m

m ary jud gm en t res po ns e. See So li m an v. Jo ha nn s, 41 2 F.3 d 92 0,

92 1- 22 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). A co ur t m ay gr an t a pa rty’ s tim el y m ot io n fo r an ex te ns io n

up on a sh owi ng of go od cau se , se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 6( b) (1 )(A), or m ay fo r go od cau se

gr an t a pa rty’ s req ue st fo r an ex te ns io n of ti m e “ aft er th e ti m e ha s ex pi red if th e pa rty

fai le d to act be cau se of e xc us ab le ne gl ect ,” id . 6(b )(1 )(B) . The di st ric t co ur t fo un d

th at Alb rig ht ha d no t sh own go od cau se fo r an ex te ns io n pr io r to th e de ad li ne , in st ead

fin di ng “ co nt um aci ou s

. . . d is reg ard fo r de ad li ne s an d pr oc ed ur al ru le s” in li gh t of

Alb rig ht ’s rep eat ed fai lu re to mee t de ad li ne s th ro ug ho ut th e cas e. D. Ct

. Ord er of
Sep te m be r 15

, 20 17

, at 4 (q uo ti ng Jo hn so n v. Day to n Elec

. Mfg

. Co

., 14 0 F.3 d 78 1,

78 4 ( 8 t h Ci r. 19 98 ) (co nc lu di ng th at “ [w]e ha ve rare ly, if ev er, ex cu se d”

co nt um aci ou s di sr eg ard fo r de ad li ne s) ). “ The pr im ary m eas ur e of go od cau se is th e

m ov an t’s di li ge nc e” in at te m pt in g to m eet de ad li ne s. Rah n v. Hawki ns , 4 6 4 F.3 d

81 3, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (co ns id eri ng m ot io n to am en d pl ead in gs un de r Ru le 16 (b )).

“ W e ge ne ral ly ‘w il l no t co ns id er pr ejud ic e [to th e no nm ov an t] if th e m ov an t ha s no t

be e n di li ge nt

. . . .’ ” Hart is v. Ch ic ag o Tit le In s. Co

., 69 4 F.3 d 93 5, 94 8 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 ) (fi rs t al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Sh erm an v. W in co Fi rewo rk s , I n c

. , 53 2

F.3 d 7 09 , 71 7 (8 th Cir . 20 08 )).

Alb rig ht arg ue s th at sh e ha d es ta bl is he d go od cau se by pr ov id in g ev id en ce of

he r co un se l’s bu sy wo rk sc he du le an d he r co un se l’s n eed to att en d t o fa m il y he al th

co nc erns

. Alb rig ht req ue st ed a th ree- week ex te ns io n aft er twel ve of he r fo ur te en da y s

to res po nd ha d el ap se d, ex pl ai ni ng , in pa r t, th at he r co un se l ha d m an y up co m in g

o b l i g at io ns in ot he r cas es

. Sh e di d no t ex pl ai n, ho wev er, why sh e co ul d no t h a v e

co m pl et ed he r res po ns e in th e p rece di ng twel ve da y s, no r di d sh e p ro vi de ev id en ce

of an y di li ge nt effo rts on he r co un se l’s pa rt t o mee t t h e or ig in al de ad li ne , su ch as

at te m pt in g to res ch ed ul e up co m in g ob li ga ti on s. The di st ric t co ur t th us di d no t ab us e

it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Al br ig ht ’s m ot io ns pri or to th e d ead li ne

.

-1 1-Alt ho ug h Alb rig ht ’s co un se l th er e a f t er at te m pt ed wit h so m e di li ge nc e to

co m pl et e he r res po ns e, he r fil in g it te n da y s aft er t h e d e a d l i n e di d no t crea te go od

cau se whe re no ne pr ev io us ly ex is te d. Nor co ul d Alb rig ht es ta bl is h ex cu sa bl e ne gl ect

if go od cau se were fo un d. Exc us ab le ne gl ect en co m pa ss es fo ur fact or s: pr ejud ic e to

th e no n- m ov in g pa rty, th e le ng th of th e de la y , th e m ov an t’s go od fai th

, an d th e reas on

fo r th e de la y

. See In re Gui da nt Co rp

. Im pl an ta bl e Defi br il la to rs Pro ds

. Liab

. Lit ig

., 49 6 F.3 d 86 3, 86 6

- 6 7 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 07 ) (ci ti ng Pi on eer In v. Serv

. Co

. v. Bru ns wick

Ass oc

. Ltd

. P’sh ip

, 50 7 U.S. 38 0, 39 5 (1 99 3) ). The reas on fo r th e de la y is a ke y
fact or in th e an al y si s. Id

. at 86 7. Alb ri g h t a r g u e s t ha t “ [w]hat th e di st ric t co ur t

de sc rib es as a la ck of di li ge nc e co ul d jus t as eas il y be de sc rib ed as a ‘m is t a k e ’ by

co un se l in m an ag in g he r cas el oa d, an d th us , sh ou ld be co ns id ered ex cu sa bl e ne gl ec t.”
App el la nt ’s Br. 35

. W e di sa gr ee, as we ha ve pr ev io us ly he ld th at pr eo ccu pa ti on wit h

ot he r he ari ng s do es no t co ns ti tu te ex cu sa bl e n e g l e c t

. See Hawks v. J.P. Mo rg an
Ch as e Ban k, 59 1 F.3 d 10 43

, 10 48 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). I n a d d i t i o n , th e di st ric t co ur t

fo un d th at Alb rig ht ha d no t act ed in go od fai th

, ha vi ng m ad e li tt le effo rt to m eet th e

or ig in al de ad li ne de sp it e th e co ur t’s rep eat ed warn in gs

. W e co nc lu de th at Alb rig ht ’s

la te fil in g was no t ex cu sa bl e, no twi th st an din g the re la ti ve in su bs ta nt ia li ty of th e de la y

an d o f th e d an ge r of

pre jud ic e to th e Dis tri ct

. The di st ric t co ur t t hu s d id no t ab us e 4

it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Al br ig ht ’s m ot io n a nd st rik in g h er re sp on se

.

The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at Alb r i g h t h a d fai le d to ex ha us t he r
ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s wit h reg ard to th e maj o r i t y of he r al le ga ti on s th at aro se

ou ts id e th e pe rio d co ve red by he r th ird du e pr oc es s co m pl ai nt

. The cl a i ms a r is in g
be fo re Nov em

be r 2 0 1 3 h a d b een res ol ve d by se tt le m en t ag reem en t, rat he r th an by

way of a du e pr oc es s he ari ng

. Alb rig ht arg ue s th at se tt le m en t co ns ti tu te s ex ha us ti on

Alb rig ht ar g u e s t ha t th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve ex pl ic it ly an al y zed th e 4

Pi on eer fact or s. Su ch a fai lu re “ do es no t m an da te an au to m at ic rev ers al .” Gui da nt

, 49 6 F.3 d at 86 6 n.3

. The di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to fo cu s on th e reas on fo r de la y an d
Alb rig ht ’s ba d fai th was “ reas on ab le un de r th e fact s of th is cas e.” Gib bo ns v. Uni te d
St at es , 31 7 F .3d 85 2, 8 54 n.4 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3)

.

-1 2-un de r th e IDEA, o r, in th e al te rn at iv e, th at ex ha us ti on in he r ca s e wou ld ha ve be en

fu ti l e

. We ha ve no t he ret of or e de ci de d whe th er se tt le m en t co ns ti tu te s ex ha us ti on 5

un de r th e IDEA. W e rev ie w de no vo whe th er ex ha us ti on of ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s

was req ui red

. See J.M

. v. Fran ci s Howel l Sch

. Dis t., 85 0 F.3 d 94 4, 94 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 17 ).

The IDEA req ui res a cl ai m an t to ex ha us t he r a d mi ni st rat iv e rem ed ie s at th e

st at e le ve l be fo re fil in g a ci vi l su it un de r it s pr ov is io ns

. See 20 U.S.C.
§ 14 15 (i) (2 )(A). Had Alb rig ht so ug ht t o su e on ly un de r th e IDEA, su bs ect io n (i)

wou ld ha ve req ui red th at sh e be “ ag gr ie ve d by th e fin di ng s an d de ci si on m ad e un de r

su bs ect io n (f).” Id

. Su bs ect io n ( f ) se ts fo rth th e req ui rem en ts fo r im pa rti al du e

p ro ces s he ari ng s. Bec au se Alb rig ht fil ed su it un de r ot he r la ws in ad di ti on t o t h e IDEA, ho wev er, sh e was req ui red to ex ha us t t h e a d mini st rat iv e pr oc ed ur es “ un de r

su bs e c t i o n s (f) an d (g )

. . . to th e sa m e ex te nt as wou ld be req ui red ha d th e act io n
be en br ou gh t u n d e r [th e IDEA] .” Id

. at § 14 15 (l)

. Su bs ect io n (g ), whi ch go ve rn s 6

st at e ad m in is tra ti ve ap pe al s, d oe s n ot ap pl y he re.

Alb rig ht was th us req ui red to ex ha us t th e pr oc ed ur es se t fo rth in su bs ect io n (f)

to th e sa m e ex te nt req ui red by su bs ect io n ( i )

, w h i ch by it s pl ai n la ng ua ge pe rm it s

ap pe al s on ly fro m “ th e fin di ng s an d de ci si on ” res ul ti ng fro m a du e pr oc es s he ari ng

. Id

. at § 14 15 (i) (2 ). It ne ces sa ril y fo ll ows th at li ke

- e x t e n t e x h au st io n req ui res th e

Alb rig ht al so arg ue s th at ev en if he r pr e-No ve m be r 15

, 20 13

, cl ai m s are ba rred 5

fo r fai lu re to ex ha us t, m at eri al s in th e reco rd fro m th at pe rio d no ne th el es s su pp or t he r

rem ai ni ng cla im s b ecau se th os e m at eri al s wo ul d be ad m is si bl e at tri al . See Fed . R.
Ci v. P. 56 (c). W e ne ed no t co ns id er th is arg um en t, be cau se on ce it st ru ck Alb rig ht ’s

su m m ary jud gm en t resp on se , th e di st ric t cou rt con si de red on ly th e reco rd m at eri al s ci te d b y th e Dis tri ct

.

Alb rig ht do es no t co nt es t th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at he r al le ga ti on s 6

co nc ern ed th e d en ia l o f a FAPE. See 2 0 U.S.C. § 14 15 (l) ; Fr y v. Nap ol eo n C om m

. Sch s., 1 37 S. Ct. 7 43 , 75 2 (2 01 7)

.

-1 3-en try of ad m in is tra ti ve fin di ng s an d a de ci si on

. A pr e-d eci si on se tt le m en t th us fai ls

to sat is fy th e IDEA’ s re qu ire m en ts

.

Alb rig ht arg ue s th at th is read in g is in co ns is te nt wit h Co ng res s’s pu rp or te d

in te nt to en co ur ag e se tt le m en t, part ic ul arl y in li gh t of the IDEA’ s 20 04 am en dm en t

al lo win g clai m an ts th e o pt io n o f m ed ia ti ng th ei r cl ai m s. As the Ten th Ci rcu it he ld

, ho wev er, whe n reject in g th is sa m e arg um en t in A.F. ex rel

. Ch ris ti ne B. v. Esp añ ol a

Pu bl ic Sch oo ls

, 80 1 F.3 d 12 45 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 15 ), “ th e te rm s of th e st at ut e are cl ear an d

un am bi gu ou s.” Id

. at 12 49 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Sp ren ge r, 62 5 F.3 d 13 05

, 13 07
(1 0t h Ci r. 20 10 )). Mo reo ve r, “ th ere is n o t h i ng rem ot el y im pl au si bl e ab ou t th e ‘pol ic y ’ res ul t th e pl ai n la ng ua ge di ct at es .” Id

. at 12 50 (“ [W] e can eas il y im ag in e a

rat io na l Co ng res s

. . . ta ki ng on e of m an y po ss ib le in te rm ed ia te po si ti on s by req ui rin g

th os e who wis h to fo reg o a m ed ia te d IDEA se tt le m en t to ex ha us t (o r pr ov e fu ti le ) al l

of th e ad m in is tra ti ve gr ie va nc e pr oc es se s av ai la bl e to th em be fo re br in gi ng an y
rel at ed fed eral la wsu it .”); se e al so End rew F., 13 7 S. Ct

. at 10 01 -0 2 (“ By th e ti m e an y
di sp ut e reac he s co ur t, sc ho ol au th or it ie s wil l ha ve ha d a co m pl et e o p p o rtu ni ty to

br in g t he ir e xp ert is e an d ju dg m en t t o b ear o n a reas of d is ag reem en t.”)

.

Alt ho ug h we ha ve reco gn iz ed th e fu ti l i ty ex cep ti on to ad m in is tra ti ve

ex ha us ti on req ui rem en ts

, se e J.B

. ex rel

. Bai le y v. Avi ll a R-XIII Sch

. Dis t., 72 1 F.3 d

58 8, 59 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ), we do no t ad dr es s it s ap pl ic at io n he re be cau se Alb rig ht di d

no t at te m pt to rai se th e is su e be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t. See Kou nt ze ex rel

. Hit ch co ck

Fo un d. v. Gain es , 53 6 F.3 d 81 3, 81 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (ref us in g to co ns id er is su e rai se d

fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al whe re th e reco rd on th e cl ai m was no t de ve lo pe d be lo w).

Bec au se we co nc lu de th at Alb rig ht ’s cl ai m s are ba rred f o r f a i l u r e to ex ha us t, we

li ke wis e do no t ad dr es s th e Dis tri ct ’s arg um en t th at th os e cl ai m s were rel eas ed by th e

se tt le m en t ag reem en ts

, no r Alb rig ht ’s arg um en t th at th e Di st ric t br each ed th e

se tt le m en t ag reem en ts

.

-1 4-Fi na ll y , Alb rig ht ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to th e
Dis tri ct on he r cl ai m s of ret al ia ti on ag ai ns t he rs el f an d Ch il d Doe in vi ol at io n of
§ 50 4 of th e Reh ab il it at io n Act. We r e v i e w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of

su m m ary jud gm en t. And ers on v. Dur ha m D & M, L.L.C., 60 6 F.3 d 51 3, 51 8 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ). To es ta bl is h a pr im a faci e cas e of ret al ia ti on un de r § 50 4, Alb rig ht m us t sh ow

th at sh e was “ en ga ge d in pr ot ect e d a c t i v it y , th e Sch oo l Dis tri ct to ok so m e ad ve rs e

act io n, an d a ca u s a l co nn ect io n be twee n th e act iv it y an d th e Dis tri ct ’s act io n.”

Brad le y , 44 3 F .3d at 9 76

.

Alb rig ht arg ue s th at sh e pr ov id ed ev i d e n ce of twel ve ad ve rs e act io ns ta ke n

ag ai ns t he r an d th ree ta ke n ag ai ns t Ch il d Doe

, in su pp or t of whi ch sh e ci te s m at eri al s

co nt ai ne d in he r st ric ke n su m m ary jud gm en t r e s p o n s e. Mo reo ve r, m an y of he r

al le ga ti on s fal l ou ts id e th e du e pr oc es s p e r i o d an d ha ve no t be en ex ha us te d. The

di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Alb rig ht ’s co m pl ai nt rai se d on ly si x al le ga ti on s of ha rm

ag ai ns t he r or Ch il d Doe th at were pr op erl y ex ha us te d or di d no t req ui re ex ha us ti on

. Tho se si x a ll eg at io ns were:

(1 ) Dis tri ct pe rs on ne l fil ed fal se all eg at io ns of c hi ld ab us e ag ai ns t M s. Alb rig ht ; (2 ) Dis tri ct pe rs on ne l su bjec te d Ch il d Doe to st rip se arch es fo r

reco rd in g de vi ces th at Ms

. Alb rig ht ha d hi dd en on he r; (3 ) Ms

. Atk in so n
ge ne ral ly en de av or ed to di sc red it Ms . Alb rig ht wit h Dist ric t pers on ne l

an d fil ed fal se po li ce rep or ts ag ai ns t he r; (4 ) Ms

. Bel k fai le d to im pl em en t ev id en ce-b as ed pr act ic es whe n de si gn in g be ha vi or al
i n te rv en ti on s an d st rat eg ie s fo r Ch il d Doe ; (5 ) Ch il d Doe was de ni ed

acce ss to rem ed ia l in st ru ct io n on acco un t o f h e r d i sa bi li ty; an d (6 ) th e Dis tri ct he ld a m eet in g on Sep te m be r 5, 20 14

, at whi ch th e [ D] is tri ct

at te m pt ed to ch an ge Ch il d Doe ’s IEP wit ho ut Ms

. Alb rig ht at te nd in g or ha vi ng be en gi ve n n ot ic e.

Ju ly 5 Ord er, at 21 -2 2 (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Hav in g s t r u c k A l br ig ht ’s su m m ary jud gm en t res po ns e, th e di st ric t co ur t de em ed ad m it te d or un di sp ut ed al l f a c t u a l

as se rti on s m ad e b y

th e Dis tri ct in su pp or t o f it s s um m ary jud gm en t m ot io n.

-1 5-Alb rig ht ’s fir st th ree al le ga ti on s are refu te d by th e Dis tri ct ’s un di sp ut ed fact ua l

as se rti on s th at no fal se rep or ts of ch il d ab us e were fil ed ag ai ns t Alb rig ht

, th at Ch il d

Doe was ne ve r st rip -s earc he d, an d th at no fal se po li ce rep or ts were fil ed ag ai ns t

Alb rig ht

. The la tt er th ree al le ga ti on s are si m pl y res ta te m en ts of Alb rig ht ’s IDEA

cl ai m s. Bec au se of o u r de ci si on th at th e Dis tri ct di d no t vi ol at e th e IDEA, “ a

ret al ia ti on su it un de r § 50 4 ba se d on IDEA vi ol at io ns is pr ecl ud ed .” Brad le y , 44 3

F.3 d at 97 7. The Dis tri ct was th us en ti tl ed to su m m ary jud gm en t on Alb rig h t ’s

ret al ia ti on cla im s.

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

.

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

-1 6-