Court Opinion

ID: 9397969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 21:00:24.587278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:29.494239
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1596       Doc: 47        Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 1 of 10

                                               PUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-1596

        Z.W., a minor, by and through his parent and guardian, David Warner; DAVID
        WARNER,

                             Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                      v.

        HORRY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

                             Defendant - Appellee,

                      and

        DOES 1-10.

                             Defendant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:20-cv-00931-JD)

        Argued: March 8, 2023                                              Decided: May 26, 2023

        Before WYNN, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Heytens wrote the opinion, in which
        Judge Wynn and Judge Harris joined.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1596   Doc: 47       Filed: 05/26/2023   Pg: 2 of 10

        ARGUED: Mary Skahan Willis, ETHRIDGE LAW GROUP, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South
        Carolina, for Appellants. Kevin Alan Hall, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP,
        Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: R. Michael Ethridge, ETHRIDGE
        LAW GROUP, LLC, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellants. M. Todd Carroll,
        Bryant S. Caldwell, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellee.

                                               2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1596         Doc: 47       Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 3 of 10

        TOBY HEYTENS, Circuit Judge:

               This case asks whether a student with disabilities had to exhaust state administrative

        remedies before filing a disability discrimination suit against a school district. Concluding

        the answer is “no,” we reverse the district court’s dismissal of the student’s complaint and

        remand for further proceedings.

                                                      I.

               The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its implementing

        regulations promise students with disabilities a “free appropriate public education” tailored

        to their individual needs. 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d). The IDEA also grants various procedural

        protections to parents, including “the right to bring a civil action” to address violations of

        the statute. § 1415(i)(2)(A). Before suing, however, a parent generally must exhaust state

        administrative remedies. See MM v. School Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 535–

        36 (4th Cir. 2002).

               The IDEA is not the only federal statute that protects students with disabilities from

        unfair treatment. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) forbids any “public

        entity” (including a school) from excluding, denying services to, or discriminating against

        any “qualified individual with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The Rehabilitation Act

        imposes similar restrictions on “any program or activity receiving Federal financial

        assistance” (including schools). 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Unlike the IDEA, neither the ADA nor

        the Rehabilitation Act requires plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before suing

        non-federal entities. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.101(a), 35.172(d) (ADA); Williams v. Milwaukee

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1596      Doc: 47         Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 4 of 10

        Health Servs., Inc., 732 F.3d 770, 770–71 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2))

        (Rehabilitation Act).

               This case involves the interaction between these three statutes, specifically the

        question of when a plaintiff who is ostensibly suing under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act,

        or both—but who does not invoke the IDEA—must nonetheless exhaust administrative

        remedies. Congress addressed that question in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l), a provision designed

        to “overturn[]” a Supreme Court decision that broadly precluded ADA and Rehabilitation

        Act claims seeking to “challenge the adequacy of [a child’s] education.” Fry v. Napoleon

        Cmty. Schs., 580 U.S. 154, 160–61 (2017) (discussing Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992

        (1984)).

               Section 1415(l) “reaffirms the viability of federal statutes like the ADA or

        Rehabilitation Act as separate vehicles” for vindicating a child’s rights, even in a school

        environment. Fry, 580 U.S. at 161 (brackets and quotation marks omitted). It does so by

        stating that “[n]othing in” the IDEA “shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights,

        procedures, and remedies available under” the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, or other

        “Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l). For

        that reason, “the IDEA does not prevent a plaintiff from asserting claims under such laws

        even if . . . those claims allege the denial of an appropriate public education (much as an

        IDEA claim would).” Fry, 580 U.S. at 161.

               At the same time, Section 1415(l) “imposes a limit on that ‘anything goes’ regime,

        in the form of an exhaustion provision.” Fry, 580 U.S. at 161. Before a plaintiff may file

        “a civil action” under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act “seeking relief that is also

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1596      Doc: 47          Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 5 of 10

        available under” the IDEA, the plaintiff must “exhaust[]” the IDEA’s administrative

        procedures “to the same extent as would be required had the action been brought under”

        the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l).

                                                     II.

               This case involves a student named Z.W. In 2017, when Z.W. was in elementary

        school, he was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, language disorder, and anxiety.

        A psychologist recommended Z.W. receive Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy—

        administered by a certified behavior therapist—in various settings including school,

        daycare, and around his community. Z.W. had private insurance that would pay for an ABA

        therapist to accompany Z.W. to school and treat him throughout the day.

               Between 2017 and 2021, Z.W.’s parents asked defendant Horry County School

        District at least four times to allow Z.W. to be accompanied at school by an ABA therapist,

        at no cost to the school district. The school district denied the first three requests and did

        not respond to the fourth.

               Following these rejections, Z.W.’s father filed a three-count complaint on Z.W.’s

        behalf in federal district court. Counts One and Two alleged the school district violated the

        ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by refusing to accommodate Z.W.’s request to have an

        ABA therapist accompany him at school. Count Three sought injunctive relief to remedy

        those alleged violations. The complaint did not mention the IDEA or allege the denial of a

        free appropriate public education. The district court dismissed Z.W.’s complaint “for

        failure to exhaust the administrative remedies under the IDEA.” JA 139.

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1596      Doc: 47         Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 6 of 10

                                                    III.

               We begin with a procedural tangle. Relying on this Court’s non-precedential

        decision in Z.G. ex rel. C.G. v. Pamlico County Public School Board of Education,

        744 Fed. Appx. 769 (4th Cir. 2018), the school district moved to dismiss solely under

        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the ground that Z.W.’s failure to exhaust

        administrative remedies deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Although

        Z.W.’s responsive filing insisted exhaustion was not required, it neither challenged the

        premise that exhaustion was a jurisdictional matter nor disputed that exhaustion could be

        adjudicated via a motion to dismiss. Again citing Z.G., the district court concluded Z.W.’s

        failure to exhaust meant it “lack[ed] subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate [Z.W.’s]

        claims.” JA 138 n.3.

               Now comes the problem. Well after the district court’s decision—indeed, after the

        appeal had been fully briefed but before oral argument—this Court issued a published

        decision “hold[ing] the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional requirement

        but a claims-processing rule.” K.I. v. Durham Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 54 F.4th 779, 792

        (4th Cir. 2022).

               When asked about K.I. at oral argument, neither side argued we should simply

        vacate and remand for further proceedings because the motion was brought under the

        wrong subsection of Rule 12(b) or because the district court erred in accepting the parties’

        premise that exhaustion is a jurisdictional requirement. Nor did Z.W. contend that—given

        K.I.—lack of exhaustion under the IDEA is an affirmative defense, which generally cannot

        be adjudicated via a motion to dismiss. Cf. Mosely v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago,

                                                     6
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1596        Doc: 47        Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 7 of 10

        434 F.3d 527, 533 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that “the earliest possible time to consider [IDEA

        exhaustion] would normally be after the answer has been filed”). The parties likewise have

        not pursued any of these matters since oral argument.

               We need not untangle these procedural knots to resolve this appeal. Neither the

        consequences of bringing a motion under the wrong rule nor the juncture at which certain

        arguments may be presented are issues implicating the district court’s subject matter

        jurisdiction or our own. Instead, such matters are governed solely by the Federal Rules of

        Civil Procedure and court-adopted rules of judicial administration. They are thus subject

        to ordinary rules of waiver and forfeiture. See United States v. Buster, 26 F.4th 627, 632

        n.1 (4th Cir. 2022) (“[A]ny jurisdictional requirements found in federal rules exist by virtue

        of the Constitution and statutes, not the rules themselves.” (formatting and quotation marks

        omitted)). And because the parties have not raised these issues, they are forfeited.

        See Stokes v. Stirling, 64 F.4th 131, 136 (4th Cir. 2023) (reaffirming a party may “forfeit[]”

        a non-jurisdictional argument “by not raising it on appeal”). We thus turn to the substance

        of the district court’s ruling.

                                                     IV.

               The district court erred in concluding Z.W. needed to exhaust administrative

        remedies under the IDEA before bringing this suit.

               The school district insists exhaustion was required because Z.W.’s complaint

        involves ABA therapy, and “ABA services can be available under the IDEA.” Sch. Dist.

        Br. 7 (capitalization omitted). We agree ABA services can be part of the “individualized

        education program” (often called an IEP) to which qualifying students with disabilities are

                                                      7
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1596       Doc: 47          Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 8 of 10

        entitled under the IDEA. See, e.g., Sumter Cnty. Sch. Dist. 17 v. Heffernan ex rel. TH,

        642 F.3d 478, 481 (4th Cir. 2011) (describing IEP that “called for 27.5 hours per week of

        ABA therapy”). But as the Supreme Court explained in Fry, that is not the relevant

        question. See 580 U.S. at 171–72 (noting a wheelchair-using student whose school lacks

        ramps might sue under either the ADA or the IDEA). Instead, the exhaustion inquiry

        “hinges on whether a lawsuit seeks relief for the denial of ” the IDEA’s “sine qua non”: a

        free appropriate public education (often called, sadly, a FAPE). Id. at 167–68 (emphasis

        added).

               In answering that question, the Supreme Court has told us to “look to the substance,

        or gravamen, of the plaintiff’s complaint” to determine whether it “concerns the denial of

        a FAPE, or instead addresses disability-based discrimination.” Fry, 580 U.S. at 165, 171.

        The Court also identified two “hypothetical questions” that provide a “clue” on which side

        of the line a given case falls. Id. at 171. “First, could the plaintiff have brought essentially

        the same claim if the alleged conduct had occurred at a public facility that was not a

        school—say, a public theater or library?” Id. “[S]econd, could an adult at the school—say,

        an employee or visitor—have pressed essentially the same grievance?” Id.

               When, as here, the answer to both questions is “yes,” it is “unlikely” a complaint

        “that does not expressly allege the denial of a FAPE is . . . truly about that subject.” Fry,

        580 U.S. 171. The “essence” (id. at 172) of Z.W.’s beef with the school district is its refusal

        to permit him to bring his privately supplied and funded ABA therapist to school with him.

        Z.W. could file essentially the same claim against a library, a museum, or a summer camp.

        What is more, a non-student visitor (say, a friend, sibling, or other relative) could make a

                                                       8
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1596      Doc: 47         Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 9 of 10

        largely identical claim against the school district if it refused to permit an ABA therapist

        to accompany the visitor to Z.W.’s school.

               The school district disagrees with our framing, insisting the “who pays for it”

        question is “not material” and that the correct inquiry is whether Z.W. could seek to make

        a public theater or library “provide” an ABA therapist. Oral Arg. 28:15–28:43. But once

        again, that argument departs from how the Supreme Court approached these issues in Fry.

        Fry involved parents who had “obtained a trained service dog” named Wonder to assist

        their child with “various life activities” and sought permission for the dog “to join [the

        child] in kindergarten.” 580 U.S. at 162. The Supreme Court did not frame the issue as

        whether the student could have asked a library or public theater to supply a service dog or

        whether an adult visitor could have asked the school to do so. Instead, it noted “that the

        Frys could have filed essentially the same complaint if a public library or theater had

        refused admittance to Wonder” and “that an adult visitor to the school could have leveled

        much the same charges if prevented from entering with his service dog.” Id. at 175

        (emphasis added). So too here.

               The school district’s attempt to dismiss the “who pays” question also strays from

        the statutory text. When a plaintiff sues under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act,

        exhaustion is required only if the plaintiff is “seeking relief that is also available under”

        the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l). But the only substantive right created by the IDEA is to a

        “free appropriate public education,” § 1401(9) (emphasis added), and the only relief

        available during the IDEA’s administrative process are measures designed to vindicate that

        right, see Fry, 580 U.S. at 166–68. Because Z.W.’s complaint requests nothing that would

                                                     9
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1596      Doc: 47         Filed: 05/26/2023     Pg: 10 of 10

        be “provided at public expense . . . and without charge” to him and his parents, § 1401(9),

        its “essence” or “crux” does not appear to “concern[ ] the denial of a FAPE” in either

        “surface” or “substance,” Fry, 580 U.S. at 169, 171, 172.

               Finally, “the history of the[se] proceedings” does not suggest “the gravamen of

        [Z.W.’s] suit is the denial of a FAPE.” Fry, 580 U.S. at 173. The school district has never

        suggested that Z.W. or his parents “previously invoked the IDEA’s formal procedures to

        handle the dispute” about whether Z.W.’s privately financed ABA therapist could

        accompany him to school, “thus starting to exhaust the [IDEA’s] remedies before switching

        midstream” as part of some sort of “strategic calculation[].” Id. Quite the contrary: The

        school district insists that accepting Z.W.’s position would allow him “to skip the IDEA’s

        administrative process altogether.” Sch. Dist. Br. 23; see Oral Arg. 33:40–34:50 (counsel

        for the school district asserting that Z.W. seeks to “bypass” or “sidestep” the IDEA’s

        administrative process and “go straight to federal court”). Here, too, all signs indicate

        Z.W.’s complaint is not a disguised IDEA claim.

                                             *      *      *

               We offer no opinion about whether Z.W. has valid claims under the ADA or the

        Rehabilitation Act or what defenses the school district may have to them. We hold only

        that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint because Z.W. failed to exhaust

        administrative remedies under the IDEA. The judgment of the district court is reversed,

        and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                                                                   SO ORDERED

                                                    10