E. L. Ex Rel. Lorsson v. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education
773 F.3d 509
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- E.L., a child with autism and associated speech/motor delays, received an IEP and services from Chapel Hill–Carrboro Board of Education beginning at age three; placements included the FPG Institute and Mariposa School.
- Parents alleged the school board failed to provide a FAPE under the IDEA and sought a due-process hearing before an ALJ after withdrawing E.L. from the Institute in March 2010.
- After a 14-day hearing, the ALJ found the IEPs appropriate except that the school board failed to provide required speech therapy during April–May 2009 and September–December 2009, awarding reimbursement for therapy and transportation for 60 hours.
- The school board appealed to the State Board of Education; a state review officer reversed the ALJ on the speech-therapy issue, concluding the therapy was provided as required. E.L. did not file a formal appeal to the State Board.
- E.L. then sued in federal court, asserting broader IDEA violations for 2008–11. The district court dismissed claims not presented to the review officer for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and affirmed that the speech therapy was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IDEA requires state-level review when the initial hearing is conducted by a state administrative hearing officer | E.L.: No; when hearings are conducted by state hearing officers, the IDEA does not mandate a separate state-board review | School Bd.: States may implement a two-tier review; North Carolina’s scheme is permissible and consistent with IDEA goals | Court: IDEA allows states to adopt a two-tier review; North Carolina’s process is lawful and exhaustion includes state review |
| Whether E.L. exhausted administrative remedies by submitting written materials to the review officer | E.L.: Her written response and proposed final decision constituted an appeal and asked for reversal | School Bd.: E.L. failed to file the statutory written notice of appeal; her filings disavowed appeal and did not identify specific findings for review | Court: E.L. did not file the required notice of appeal; her filings were not a proper appeal and did not invoke the review officer’s jurisdiction |
| Applicability of exhaustion exceptions (futility, lack of notice, harm) | E.L.: Exceptions apply (argued lack of requirement or futility) | School Bd.: No exception—review officer could have provided relief; E.L. had notice and opportunity | Court: No exception applied; exhaustion required and would not have been futile or harmful |
| Whether the school board provided the speech therapy required by the IEPs during the disputed periods | E.L.: Therapy was inadequate—methodology (one-on-one ABA) and alleged missing hours/sessions; ALJ found some deficits | School Bd.: Therapy was provided in an embedded, inclusive model as the IEP required; interns worked under supervision; methodological disputes immaterial | Court: Review officer’s finding affirmed—evidence showed required speech therapy was provided and the IEPs conferred educational benefit |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (IDEA requires an IEP reasonably calculated to provide some educational benefit; courts give deference to educational judgments)
- MM ex rel. DM v. School Dist., 303 F.3d 523 (4th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is required under the IDEA with narrow exceptions)
- Winkleman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2007) (once the state educational agency decides, parties may pursue federal judicial review)
- J.P. ex rel. Peterson v. Cnty. Sch. Bd., 516 F.3d 254 (4th Cir. 2008) (administrative findings are prima facie correct and entitled to due weight on judicial review)