Eugene Nelson v. Charles City Community School
900 F.3d 587
8th Cir.2018Background
- C.N., a high-school student with PCOS and depression, had frequent absences in 2013–14; Charles City School District initiated truancy proceedings and mediated with the family.
- School officials encouraged enrollment in an out-of-district online program; Mrs. Nelson applied for open enrollment late to Clayton Ridge/ Iowa Virtual Academy; Charles City recommended denial and the local board denied the request.
- The Iowa State Board of Education later overturned the local denial and approved open enrollment, but the online program would not enroll C.N. until the next school year; C.N. did not return to high school and instead attended community college courses and obtained a CNA certificate.
- The Nelsons never invoked IDEA administrative procedures (due-process complaints/IEP process); instead they appealed the open-enrollment denial under state law and later sued under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act seeking damages.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the school district, holding the Nelsons failed to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a §504 claim required exhaustion of IDEA administrative remedies | Nelsons: their §504 suit seeks discrimination remedies (damages) and not relief available under IDEA, so exhaustion not required | District: claims seek relief for denial of a FAPE; IDEA §1415(l) requires exhaustion before suing under other laws | The court held exhaustion required because the substance (gravamen) of the complaint challenged denial of a FAPE |
| Whether the Fry test shows the claim is about FAPE vs. discrimination | Nelsons: claim is general discrimination (broken promise of access), not education-specific | District: Fry hypotheticals show only a school-child could press this grievance, so it concerns a FAPE | Court: applying Fry, found answers to hypotheticals indicate the complaint concerns a FAPE |
| Whether exceptions to exhaustion (futility/inadequate relief/agency policy) apply | Nelsons: exhaustion would be futile or administrative remedies inadequate because district never identified C.N. for special education and IDEA cannot award money damages | District: IDEA procedures were available and could have provided meaningful relief; money damages alone do not excuse exhaustion | Court: no exception applies; administrative process was available and could have afforded some relief (compensatory education, fees); money-only relief does not avoid exhaustion |
| Whether prior state-board relief obviates IDEA exhaustion | Nelsons: State Board granted open enrollment (educational remedy), leaving only damages now, so IDEA exhaustion not required | District: the relevant inquiry is what relief was available at the time of the challenged conduct and whether IDEA procedures were invoked then | Court: prior state-board decision does not remove exhaustion requirement for claims that seek relief available under IDEA |
Key Cases Cited
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (test to determine when IDEA exhaustion applies by assessing whether gravamen of claim is denial of FAPE)
- McCauley ex rel. J.M. v. Francis Howell Sch. Dist., 850 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 2017) (IDEA exhaustion requirement and exceptions framework)
- Bailey ex rel. J.B. v. Avilla R-XIII Sch. Dist., 721 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2013) (IDEA obligations and exhaustion analysis)
- Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 2002) (parents cannot bypass administrative process and later sue for damages after schooling ends)
- McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992) (administrative remedies may be inadequate when agency lacks power to grant effective relief)