Dallas Independent School District v. Woody Ex Rel. K.W.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13668
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kelsey Woody, a high-school senior with learning disabilities and a later diagnosis of schizophrenia, attended the Winston School (a private nonpublic school) in Dallas after leaving LAUSD and a psychiatric hospitalization.
- LAUSD previously found Kelsey IDEA-eligible and settled with Woody for 2012–13 costs and to place her in a nonpublic school for 2013–14, but the May 2013 IEP named a different nonpublic school in California.
- Woody moved Kelsey to Dallas for 2013–14; Kelsey remained at Winston. Woody notified Dallas ISD (the District) seeking FAPE and tuition reimbursement and provided records; the District scheduled a meeting, then sought parental consent to evaluate.
- The District completed an initial FIE in April 2014 (finding eligibility), then revised it to deny eligibility; after further assessments the ARD reconvened May 22 and found eligibility and proposed an IEP placing Kelsey in a District high school for April 2014–April 2015 (Kelsey would graduate May 2014). The District never reconvened to consider Woody’s summer IEE.
- A hearing officer awarded Woody $25,426.93 (full 2013–14 Winston tuition); the district court reduced that to $11,942.50, finding the District impeded FAPE but that Woody’s conduct partially contributed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court created a new non‑statutory category requiring temporary/comparable services when a district rejects an out‑of‑state IEP | Woody: District had to provide at least temporary FAPE when it rejected LAUSD’s IEP and thus should have provided interim services | District: No statutory duty to provide interim services here; district court invented a new category | Court: No new category; IDEA does not require temporary services on these facts; reversed that portion of district court order |
| Whether Kelsey was a parentally‑placed private‑school student such that reimbursement is barred if District offered FAPE | Woody: Forest Grove allows reimbursement where district failed to provide timely FAPE even if parents initially placed child in private school | District: If parentally placed, §1412(a)(10) limits reimbursement when district offered FAPE; Woody’s placement wasn’t the statutory unilateral transfer scenario | Court: Forest Grove controls — parental placement does not bar reimbursement per se; Woody eligible to seek reimbursement if District failed to offer timely FAPE |
| Whether the District timely evaluated and offered a FAPE (including whether ARD/P refused to consider the IEE) | Woody: District delayed, failed to finalize an IEP, and refused to consider the IEE; thus it never timely offered FAPE | District: Followed child‑find/evaluation timelines; acted reasonably and made an offer within regulatory deadlines | Court: District had notice 9/19/13; referral/EIE timeline was generally reasonable but District failed to reconvene to consider the IEE and did not offer a meaningful FAPE by April 24–end of year; affirmed that FAPE was not timely offered |
| Proper temporal scope of reimbursement (when reimbursement may commence) | Woody: Entitled to reimbursement for full spring semester or whole year (she sought full year) | District: Reimbursement (if any) should be limited to period after district obligations accrued; not before evaluation duty arose | Court: Reimbursement may run from the date District should have offered FAPE (April 24, 2014) through end of school year; reversed district court’s grant for earlier temporary‑services period and remanded to calculate amount from April 24 to year end |
Key Cases Cited
- Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE‑1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of child’s circumstances)
- Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009) (reimbursement may be available even when parents unilaterally place child in private school if district failed to provide FAPE)
- Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) (courts may order reimbursement as appropriate equitable relief under IDEA)
- Cypress‑Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard of review and IEP development requirements under IDEA)
- Michael Z. v. Richardson Indep. Sch. Dist., 580 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 2009) (substantive‑benefit analysis for IEPs)
- Sam K. ex rel. Diane C. v. State of Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 788 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing tacit consent and reimbursement when district effectively allowed private placement)
- Knable ex rel. Knable v. Bexley City Sch. Dist., 238 F.3d 755 (6th Cir. 2001) (reimbursement limited to costs the district would have paid had it complied; cannot reach back before district’s obligations accrued)
- Rowley v. Bd. of Educ., 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (limits on judicial re‑weighing of educational policy; interpretation of "appropriate education")