Connor Durbrow v. Cobb County School District
887 F.3d 1182
11th Cir.2018Background
- Connor, diagnosed with ADHD, advanced through honors/AP Magnet Program and scored highly on standardized tests until sudden senior-year decline featuring multiple course failures and incomplete work.
- CCSD accommodated Connor with a §504 plan (extended time, small classes, reduced homework amendments) and counseling offers; parents declined some in-school organizational help.
- In May 2013 parents requested an IDEA evaluation; CCSD initiated eligibility process and later found Connor IDEA-eligible at a September 2013 meeting (disputed factual record on timing/requests).
- Parents filed an OSAH due-process complaint raising IDEA and §504 claims; they opposed consolidation and withdrew the §504 hearing request, so the ALJ adjudicated only IDEA claims and found Connor not a "child with a disability" under the IDEA.
- On district-court review, the court dismissed parents’ §504 and ADA claims for failure to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies, rejected tolling of the IDEA statute of limitations, and affirmed that Connor did not require special education or that CCSD violated child-find.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §504 and ADA claims required exhaustion under IDEA | Durbrows: because IDEA claims were heard by OSAH, additional exhaustion for §504/ADA was unnecessary | CCSD: claims seeking relief for denial of a FAPE must exhaust IDEA procedures | Court: §504/ADA claims alleging denial of a FAPE required IDEA exhaustion; dismissal for failure to exhaust affirmed |
| Whether IDEA limitations period should be tolled | Durbrows: earlier requests for "help/testing" in middle school triggered duty to notify procedural rights, tolling limitations | CCSD: parents did not request an IDEA evaluation until senior year; no withholding of procedural rights | Court: ALJ credibility findings not clearly erroneous; no tolling; limitations applied |
| Whether Connor was a "child with a disability" entitled to IDEA FAPE (substantive eligibility) | Durbrows: ADHD and executive-function deficits impaired educational performance and required special education | CCSD: Connor met academic standards, teachers did not recommend special education, problems were motivation/procrastination rather than inability to learn | Court: Connor did not need special education; not a "child with a disability" under IDEA; no FAPE violation |
| Whether CCSD breached child-find duty | Durbrows: CCSD failed to identify/ evaluate earlier | CCSD: no clear signs warranting evaluation; provided §504 accommodations and other supports; evaluated promptly once on notice | Court: No child-find violation—either no duty because Connor not a qualifying child, or CCSD acted reasonably and timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (interpretation of IDEA’s purpose and FAPE concept)
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (IDEA exhaustion applies when claim seeks relief also available under IDEA; gravamen test)
- Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (standard for IEPs being reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress)
- M.T.V. v. DeKalb Cty. Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153 (IDEA exhaustion and administrative-review rules)
- Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275 (standard of review for mixed law/fact IDEA issues)
- Alvin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Patricia F., 503 F.3d 378 (eligibility considerations for "other health impairments"/ADHD)
- D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 233 (parental request for evaluation and child-find analysis)
- Bd. of Educ. of Fayette Cty. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307 (child-find duty and signs requiring evaluation)
- Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (scope of child-find and IDEA obligations)
- Owens v. Wainwright, 698 F.2d 1111 (deference to administrative credibility findings on cold record)