Opinion ID: 777468
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The IDEA and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Text: 9 The IDEA, previously known as the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) and amended several times since its inception in 1970, mandates federal grants to states to provide disabled children 3 with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive appropriate environment. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400(d)(1)(A), 1401(8), 1411(a)(1) & 1412(a)(5)(A). Educators and parents of a child covered by the IDEA must jointly develop an individualized education program (IEP) for each year of the child's education. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(11), 1414(d). According to the statute, an IEP must include, in writing, a statement of the child's present levels of educational performance ...; a statement of measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term objectives ...; a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child... to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals ...; [and] the projected date for the beginning of the services and modifications ... and the anticipated frequency, location, and duration of those services and modifications. Id. § 1414(d)(1)(A). The IEP is the central mechanism by which public schools ensure that their disabled students receive a free appropriate public education. 10 The IDEA requires that states offer parents of a disabled student an array of procedural safeguards designed to help ensure the education of their child, see id. § 1415(a), including the right to examine all records relating to [the] child and to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child, and the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child, and to obtain an independent educational evaluation of the child, id. § 1415(b)(1), written notice prior to any changes in the child's identification, evaluation or educational placement, id. § 1415(b)(3), an opportunity to present complaints with respect to such matters, id. § 1415(b)(6), and, whenever any such complaint is made, the right to an impartial due process hearing ... by the State educational agency or by the local educational agency, with corresponding rights to be accompanied and advised by counsel, to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, to receive a written record of proceedings, and to receive written findings of fact and decisions. 4 Id. § 1415(f)(1) & (h). 11 Although the IDEA provides for a federal cause of action to enforce such rights, it imposes a broadly applicable requirement that plaintiffs first exhaust administrative remedies: 12 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. § 12101 et seq.], title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [29 U.S.C. § 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. 13 Id. § 1415( l ) (brackets in original, emphasis added). A plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction. See Hope v. Cortines, 69 F.3d 687, 688 (2d Cir.1995). In order to ascertain whether Polera was required to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit, we must determine whether this action — which includes claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act — seeks relief that is also available under [the IDEA]. 20 U.S.C. § 1415 ( l ). 14