Foster v. Board of Education
611 F. App'x 874
7th Cir.2015Background
- Foster alleges her daughter, a student with learning disabilities, was denied IDEA services at Amandla Charter School in Chicago.
- Foster sought IEP evaluation and related services; the district provided § 504 services but did not evaluate for an IEP.
- A hearing officer found substantial evidence the district impeded Foster’s daughter’s right to FAPE and ordered some compensatory measures, though he noted consent issues might have blocked evaluations.
- Foster pursued a due-process hearing and later filed suit in federal court alleging IDEA, § 504, and § 1983 claims, while the daughter’s claims were dismissed for lack of representation by a non-attorney parent.
- The district court dismissed Foster’s IDEA and § 1983 claims but allowed her to proceed on her own IDEA rights; it concluded Foster was not aggrieved because compensation for prior sessions was not explicitly ordered.
- The Seventh Circuit held that Foster can state a claim for her own IDEA rights and remanded for further proceedings, while affirming dismissal of the daughter’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foster states an IDEA claim for herself | Foster asserts her own IDEA rights were violated by delays and denial of evaluations for her daughter. | Defendants contend Foster cannot pursue IDEA claims on behalf of her daughter or herself without counsel and that she was not aggrieved. | Foster may state an IDEA claim for her own rights; the case is remanded for further proceedings. |
| Whether a pro se parent can pursue a minor child’s IDEA claims | Winkelman allows parents some ability to litigate child claims, but only to the extent permitted for pro se representation. | Parent representation of a child pro se is prohibited; the district court properly dismissed the daughter’s claims. | The daughter's claims are dismissed; Foster may pursue her own IDEA claims. |
| Whether Foster is aggrieved and can obtain relief for compensatory education | Foster sought compensatory education including prior and future services and reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs. | The district court required explicit ordering of reimbursement for prior sessions to constitute aggrieved status; this was insufficiently supported. | Foster’s request for compensatory education, including reimbursement, is viable as part of her IDEA relief; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2007) (parents have enforceable IDEA rights, but court did not decide pro se representation of child claims)
- Batchelor v. Rose Tree Media Sch. Dist., 759 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2014) (compensatory education and reimbursement concepts in IDEA relief)
- Bowens v. Bd. of Educ. of Ocala, 762 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2014) (compensatory education as equitable relief)
- Stanek v. St. Charles Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. #303, 783 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2015) (parental rights under IDEA and remedies available)
- M.B. ex rel. Berns v. Hamilton Se. Sch., 668 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2011) (parental reimbursement considerations under IDEA)