I.Z.M. v. Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan Public Schools
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12603
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Student I.Z.M., legally blind, attended Eastview High School in Independent School District No. 196 and had an IEP requiring Braille instruction and accessible instructional materials.
- Parents filed an administrative complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education alleging failures to provide timely Braille materials, Braille instruction, and functioning assistive technology.
- An Administrative Law Judge held a four-day hearing and concluded the District provided a FAPE, finding IEP provisions largely implemented, materials usually available in accessible formats, and District staff responsive to assistive-technology issues.
- The ALJ credited District witnesses over the student/parents, found the student often opted to read visually, and determined he made educational progress (grades and class performance) despite reduced Braille reading speed.
- The district court granted judgment for the District on the IDEA claim and summary judgment on ADA and § 504 claims; the Eighth Circuit affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District failed to provide a FAPE by not consistently supplying timely, accessible Braille materials and Braille instruction | Minn. statute and IEP required Braille instruction sufficient to enable proficiency; lack of materials/instruction denied access and progress | District took reasonable steps to provide accessible materials and services; any lapses were not pervasive and student still made educational progress | Affirmed for District: ALJ and district court findings supported that IEP was largely implemented and student received educational benefit (FAPE) |
| Whether 34 C.F.R. § 300.172 requires strict/perfect compliance on timely accessible materials | Regulation imposes strict compliance beyond "reasonable steps" and must be enforced in IDEA suits | Regulation requires "all reasonable steps," not perfection; standard remains whether IEP is reasonably calculated to enable progress | Affirmed for District: regulation read as "all reasonable steps" consistent with IDEA's substantive standard |
| Whether Minnesota Blind Persons’ Literacy Rights Act imposes an absolute guarantee of Braille proficiency enforceable under IDEA | Statute creates an absolute obligation to guarantee Braille proficiency equal to peers | Statute requires instruction "sufficient to enable" proficiency but does not guarantee specific outcome; enforceable only to the extent IEP requires sufficient instruction | Affirmed for District: statute does not raise IDEA standard to an absolute-guarantee obligation |
| Whether ADA and § 504 claims survive after IDEA administrative findings or require proof of bad faith/gross misjudgment | Non-IDEA claims present distinct standards and should not be precluded; merits show discrimination | Claims are intertwined with IEP implementation and are precluded or require proof of bad faith/gross misjudgment; no such evidence here | Affirmed for District: non-IDEA claims precluded or, alternatively, fail for lack of evidence of bad faith or gross misjudgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (Supreme Court 1982) (established IDEA substantive standard and that IDEA does not guarantee a particular level of education)
- Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (Supreme Court 2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances)
- M.M. ex rel. L.R. v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 512 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review and burden in IDEA administrative appeals)
- Gill v. Columbia 93 Sch. Dist., 217 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2000) (appellate review treats district court factual findings as binding unless clearly erroneous)
- Independent Sch. Dist. No. 283 v. S.D. by J.D., 88 F.3d 556 (8th Cir. 1996) (IDEA administrative outcomes can preclude redundant ADA/§504 claims)
- Monahan v. Nebraska, 687 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1982) (requires bad faith or gross misjudgment for §504/ADA liability in educational context)
- B.M. ex rel. Miller v. South Callaway R-II Sch. Dist., 732 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2013) (reiterates bad-faith/gross-misjudgment standard for ADA/§504 claims concerning special education)