D.L. v. Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners
706 F.3d 256
4th Cir.2013Background
- D.L. is an eighth-grader with ADHD and anxiety diagnosed in 2007.
- BCBSC determined in 2009 that D.L. was eligible under Section 504 but not if enrolled in a private school.
- Maryland law does not permit dual enrollment in private and public schools.
- Proceedings began with a Hearing Examiner; district court granted summary judgment for BCBSC in 2011.
- D.L.’s family later considered private boarding school options; case proceeded, but mootness concerns were resolved as of 2012 and the court affirmed on the merits.
- Court held BCBSC provided a FAPE on equal terms and did not owe private-school-based Section 504 services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Section 504 require services for private-school students | D.L. entitled to 504 services regardless of private enrollment | 504 does not obligate funding for private-school education; access to FAPE in public schools suffices | No affirmative obligation to provide private-school services; FAPE available in district suffices |
| Is requiring private-school students to enroll in public school for 504 services constitutional | Mandatory public-school enrollment violates parental educational choice rights | District may condition access to 504 services on public-school enrollment to administer services | Constitutional; no undue burden on rights; full discretion over school choice remains with parents |
| OCR Letter to Veir controlling interpretation of 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(c)(4) | Letter supports providing services even to nonpublic-enrolled students | Agency interpretation deference applies but limits private-school service provision | OCR interpretation controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with regulation; does not require universal private-school services |
| Relation of 504 with IDEA and child-find obligations | Reading 504 to require full services mirrors IDEA rights for private-school students | IDEA limitations constrain 504 to nondiscriminatory access; no universal service obligation | Court favors nondiscrimination, not universal provision; DL not entitled to 504 services while privately enrolled |
Key Cases Cited
- Lower Merion Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 931 A.2d 640 (Pa. 2007) (dual enrollment nuances; privately enrolled child entitled to some 504 services in PA context)
- N.G. v. District of Columbia, 556 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2008) (child-find obligations do not mandate universal provision of services)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (controlling deference to agency interpretations of its own regulations)
- Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576 (2000) (limits on agency deference; interpretive authority)
- Humanoids Grp. v. Rogan, 375 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2004) (affirms deference to agency interpretations of regulations)