A.L. v. Jackson County School Board, 635 F. App'x 774

Background

P.L.B. is A.L.’s mother; A.L. receives special education from Jackson County School Board under IDEA.
Plaintiffs alleged IDEA violations: missing P.L.B. from a Nov. 17, 2010 IEP meeting, denial of a requested IEE, and lack of ESY services; they also asserted Section 504/ADA discrimination and Fourth Amendment claims.
Administrative proceedings occurred; ALJ partially granted a timing-motion, narrowing claims to Nov. 24, 2008–Nov. 24, 2010; December 2012 ALJ order denied claims.
District court granted Board summary judgment on IDEA and Section 504/ADA; remanded Fourth Amendment claim for trial.
At issue on appeal: whether the Board violated IDEA by the Nov. 17, 2010 meeting, mishandled IEE, or ESY; and whether Section 504/ADA pre-2008 claims were properly dismissed, with Fourth Amendment remanded.
Court affirmed summary judgment on IDEA and Section 504/ADA; reversed and remanded on Fourth Amendment claim for further district court consideration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the November 17, 2010 IEP meeting without P.L.B. violate IDEA?	P.L.B. participation was required; meeting without her denied FAPE.	Repeated scheduling difficulties by P.L.B. effectively refused to attend; proceeding without her complied with IDEA.	No IDEA violation; meeting proceeded without P.L.B. due to her refusal/delays.
Was the BOARD obligated to fund an IEE or was it properly managed?	Board failed to provide IEE at public expense as requested.	Board attempted reasonable local IEE; P.L.B.’s actions sabotaged process; no IDEA violation.	Board did not violate IDEA; IEE provided at public expense and P.L.B.’s actions blocked process.
Did the Board properly provide ESY under IDEA for A.L.?	Summer ESY placement at the Alternative School was not the least restrictive environment.	The district complied; ESY not required to create new programs; placement was permissible.	Board did not fail ESY requirements; placement complied with IDEA’s ESY framework.
Whether the Fourth Amendment claim against ESY searches should be resolved on summary judgment.	Daily searches at the Alternative School violated Fourth Amendment rights.	No sufficient evidence of a search or proper justifications were addressed; record insufficient for summary judgment.	Remand requested to consider Fourth Amendment analysis; partial reversal of summary judgment.
Whether pre-November 24, 2008 Section 504/ADA claims were properly disposed of.	Claims were exhausted and should be considered.	Claims outside the two-year IDEA limit and not properly appealed/appealable; jurisdiction lacking.	Court lacked jurisdiction to review pre-2008 claims; affirm district court’s dismissal on exhaustion/jurisdiction grounds.

Key Cases Cited

Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (IDEA goal of FAPE; personalized instruction suffices, not maximum potential)
RL v. Miami–Dade Cty. Sch. Bd., 757 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2014) (IEP as collaborative process; annual review required)
N.B. by D.G. v. Alachua Cty. Sch. Bd., 84 F.3d 1376 (11th Cir. 1996) (due process safeguards and administrative review under IDEA)
Loren F. v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 349 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (de novo review of IDEA interpretations; ALJ findings deferential)
Doug C. v. Hawaii Dep't of Educ., 720 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing IEE-related requirements across jurisdictions)
T.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2014) (least-restrictive environment; ESY considerations)
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) (school searches; reasonableness standard)
Safford Unified Sch. Dist. #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) (reasonableness of searches in schools; no individualized suspicion required in some contexts)
Rowley, N/A (N/A) (See above for full citation; included here for context)