Boose v. District of Columbia
415 U.S. App. D.C. 269
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Latonya Boose sued the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) under IDEA alleging DCPS failed its "child-find" duty to identify and evaluate her son A.G. during kindergarten and the start of first grade.
- A due-process Hearing Officer found no denial of a FAPE for the retrospective period (i.e., DCPS had not denied A.G. a FAPE up to that point).
- Boose requested both an evaluation and an order requiring DCPS to devise a compensatory-education plan to make up for the prior period of alleged failure.
- After Boose filed suit, DCPS completed the requested comprehensive evaluation, found A.G. eligible for special education, and created an IEP that contained no compensatory education for the prior period.
- DCPS moved to dismiss as moot (or alternatively for summary judgment), arguing the evaluation and IEP cured the claimed injury; the district court dismissed the case as moot.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed, holding the district court erred by not deciding whether compensatory education was owed and remanded for consideration of the remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boose's claim is moot after DCPS completed the requested evaluation and offered an IEP | Boose sought compensatory education (not merely an evaluation); because DCPS never provided compensatory services, the controversy remains live | The evaluation and IEP satisfied Boose's request; nothing left to remedy, so the case is moot | Not moot: complaint explicitly sought compensatory education and DCPS never offered it; dismissal for mootness was erroneous |
| Whether an IEP or evaluation can render a compensatory-education claim moot | Boose: IEPs are forward-looking and do not substitute for compensatory education for past violations | DCPS: the offered IEP/evaluation obviates any need for further relief | IEP/evaluation do not moot a compensatory-education claim because compensatory services are distinct and remedial for past harm |
| Whether appellate court should decide the merits (entitlement to compensatory education) now | Boose: district court should adjudicate compensatory-education entitlement in the first instance | DCPS: urges affirmance on the merits that no compensatory education is warranted | Court declined to decide merits; reversed and remanded for district court to consider compensatory-education entitlement first |
Key Cases Cited
- Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (courts may order compensatory education to remedy prior FAPE denials)
- Lesesne v. District of Columbia, 447 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (complaint explicitly seeking compensatory education keeps controversy live where relief was not provided)
- Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (courts have broad equitable authority to craft remedies under IDEA)
- Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (IEP must provide some educational benefit; forward-looking standard)
- Burlington v. Dept. of Ed. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) (reimbursement as a remedy to ensure FAPE objectives)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (jurisdictional question of mootness is distinct from merits)
- U.S. ex rel. Oliver v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 763 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (remand when district court erroneously dismissed on jurisdictional grounds)