BARRON EX REL. DB v. South Dakota Bd. of Regents
655 F.3d 787
8th Cir.2011Background
- The South Dakota School for the Deaf faced closure of on-campus programs and outsourcing to other districts following budget reductions and a reformist task force report.
- The task force found that a small fraction of deaf/hard-of-hearing students attended the Sioux Falls campus, while most funds supported campus activities.
- In 2009, the Board prepared to redefine the school's mission to outreach/ship-in services, including agreements with Brandon Valley and Harrisburg districts for auditory-oral and bilingual programs.
- Eight named parents filed a putative class action alleging violations of state law and IDEA, seeking to enjoin on-campus programs and outsourcing and for relief under due process and §1983.
- The district court converted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to a summary-judgment ruling, granting judgment for the Board; plaintiffs appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion under IDEA was required | Exhaustion excused due to futility and systemic changes. | Exhaustion required unless futile or inadequate relief is likely. | Exhaustion not required; relief unlikely through due process; IDEA claim preserved. |
| Whether the Board's on-campus program discontinuation violated IDEA FAPE and LRE | Stand-alone deaf school is required; moving to outreach violated FAPE/LRE. | IDEA allows least restrictive environment; integrated options acceptable; not required to maintain on-campus program. | No IDEA violation; FAPE and LRE satisfied under current arrangements. |
| Whether § 1983 claim against Perry and Warner survives | Subjects are liable for due-process violations under § 1983. | No proven IDEA violation; no constitutional violation shown. | § 1983 claim fails. |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the auditory-oral program move | Class representation includes affected students; injury in fact established. | Named plaintiffs lacked injury in fact; claims not personal to them. | Plaintiffs lack standing; third-count dismissal appropriate. |
| Whether SD Constitution/statutes required on-campus programs | Constitutional amendment preserved on-campus deaf school as an express provision. | Amendment removed the school from the on-campus mandate; Board's control is limited by statute. | Board could discontinue on-campus programs and contract for services consistent with statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., none provided (none) (exhaustion exceptions for futile relief discussed (cited for doctrine))
- Digre v. Roseville Sch. Indep. Dist. No. 623, 841 F.2d 245 (8th Cir. 1988) (administrative relief considerations under IDEA)
- Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2009) (standing and injury-in-fact analysis guidance)
- O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (class action standing requirements and injury-in-fact)
- Springdale Sch. Dist. #50 v. Grace, 693 F.2d 41 (8th Cir. 1982) (IDEA does not require the best possible option; floor-level FAPE)
- Evans v. Dist. No. 17, 841 F.2d 824 (8th Cir. 1988) (integration and main-streaming preferences under IDEA)
- Neosho R-V Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 315 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir. 2003) (definition of FAPE and rights of disabled students)
- Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Garret F., 106 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of de novo review on summary judgment in IDEA context)