E.R.K. Ex Rel. R.K. v. Hawaii Department of Education
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17950
9th Cir.2013Background
- In 2010 Hawaii enacted Act 163, barring persons who are 20 or older on the first instructional day of the school year from attending public school; the statute applied to both general-education and IDEA special-education students.
- The Hawaii Department of Education (DOE) operates Community Schools for Adults, offering two tuition-free diploma tracks (GED and Competency Based (CB)) for adults and out-of-school youth; these adult schools are exempt from Act 163.
- Plaintiffs (four disabled students and the Hawaii Disability Rights Center as representative) brought a class action asserting IDEA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act claims, alleging that Hawaii denied special-education services to disabled students aged 20–21 while offering diploma programs to nondisabled peers.
- The district court ruled for DOE after a bench trial, finding the adult diploma programs were not equivalent to secondary education and concluding plaintiffs failed to identify reasonable accommodations under the ADA/Rehabilitation Act.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the adult diploma programs constitute “free public education” under 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(B)(I) (the IDEA age-exception), and whether plaintiffs established reasonable accommodations under the ADA/Rehabilitation Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hawaii’s adult diploma programs (GED & CB) constitute “free public education” under the IDEA exception in 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(B)(I) | The GED/CB programs are publicly funded, supervised, free, and provide secondary education (lead to HS diplomas), so Hawaii cannot cut off IDEA services at age 20 while offering these programs to nondisabled students | The adult programs differ substantially from "conventional" secondary education (curriculum, rigor, outcomes), so they are not the sort of public secondary education that triggers IDEA obligations | Held for plaintiffs: GED/CB are "free public education"; Act 163 violates the IDEA to the extent it denies special-education services to disabled students ages 20–21 while nondisabled peers may access adult diploma programs |
| Whether plaintiffs proved ADA/Rehabilitation Act discrimination by showing reasonable accommodations that would make adult schools accessible | Plaintiffs argued DOE’s exclusion from the adult diploma programs discriminates; they sought continued special-education placements until age 22 as an accommodation | DOE argued plaintiffs failed to identify reasonable accommodations that would allow meaningful access to adult programs; maintaining placements is not a modification of adult programs but a fundamental change the DOE need not provide | Held for defendant: plaintiffs failed to identify a reasonable accommodation that would make the adult diploma programs generally accessible; ADA/Rehab Act claims affirmed for DOE |
| Proper remedy and scope of IDEA relief | Plaintiffs sought continuation of IDEA services through age 21 for class members | DOE defended Act 163 and sought judgment affirming age cutoff | Court reversed district judgment on IDEA claim, remanded; affirmed ADA/Rehab Act rulings; costs awarded to plaintiffs |
Key Cases Cited
- L.A. Unified Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 669 F.3d 956 (9th Cir.) (discussing IDEA age-limit context)
- Jonah R. v. Carmona, 446 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2006) (use of legislative history and statutory construction in IDEA cases)
- Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999) (Congress’s intent to open public education to qualified children with disabilities)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (historical context on exclusion of disabled students and IDEA’s purpose)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (public entities need not make fundamental alterations as reasonable accommodations)
- Zukle v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999) (plaintiff must show existence of a reasonable accommodation to establish "otherwise qualified")
- McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004) (ADA prima facie elements)