950 F.3d 1057
8th Cir.2020Background
- D.L., a child with medical diagnoses including autism, PTSD, ADHD, and toileting problems, exhibited severe autism-related behaviors and had repeated hospitalizations and regression in public placements.
- District IEPs documented his autism and long‑standing sensory needs; in November 2016 the IEP team removed direct occupational therapy (OT) and placed him at Madison, a behavior‑focused school lacking autism‑specific resources.
- D.L.’s parents unilaterally enrolled him at Giant Steps, a private autism‑focused school, and filed an IDEA due‑process complaint seeking reimbursement for tuition.
- The Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) upheld the District’s IEP and placement; the federal district court reversed, finding a denial of FAPE but limited reimbursement to the period before the AHC hearing because Madison later installed a sensory room and admitted students with autism.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed jurisdictional and procedural challenges, held the District denied a FAPE by eliminating direct OT and placing D.L. at Madison, found Giant Steps an appropriate placement, and reversed the district court’s limitation of reimbursement, awarding full tuition reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / mootness of AHC complaint | Parents timely gave notice at the Nov. 2016 IEP; D.L. remained enrolled when complaint filed | Thompson bars review if student changed districts before filing | AHC had jurisdiction: D.L. was still enrolled and Thompson inapplicable |
| Burden of proof at AHC and on appeal | Parents (as challengers) bore burden at AHC and on judicial review | District argued district court misstated burden allocation | Misstatement of past burden by district court was harmless; court correctly placed burden on parents on appeal |
| Denial of FAPE: elimination of direct OT and placement at Madison | IEP removal of direct OT and placement at a school without autism supports denied FAPE given D.L.’s documented, medical sensory needs | District relied on some staff testimony that behaviors were attention‑seeking and that Madison could serve behavioral needs | District denied FAPE: Madison lacked autism resources and staff and removing OT ignored medical/IEP evidence of sensory needs |
| Appropriateness of Giant Steps and scope of reimbursement | Giant Steps provided autism‑focused services, OT, sensory supports and produced academic progress; parents entitled to full reimbursement | District sought to limit reimbursement after Madison later added a sensory room and enrolled autistic students | Giant Steps was appropriate; reimbursement cannot be limited based on uncommunicated post‑placement improvements at Madison — full tuition reimbursement granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005) (party seeking relief bears burden of proof in administrative IDEA hearing)
- Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE‑1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of child’s circumstances)
- Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (FAPE requires some educational benefit consistent with IEP goals)
- Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (district courts may consider equitable factors when awarding private tuition reimbursement)
- Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009) (parents may obtain reimbursement for unilateral private placement if public FAPE denied and private placement appropriate)
- Thompson v. Bd. of Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 144 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 1998) (limits on challenging prior services after student changes districts)
- M.M. ex rel. L.R. v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 512 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2008) (Thompson limits; burden allocation error may be reversible)
- C.B. ex rel. B.B. v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 636 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2011) (standards for parental unilateral placement and reimbursement)
- Sneitzer v. Iowa Dept. of Educ., 796 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff must show private placement was appropriate under IDEA)