J.M. Ex Rel. McCauley v. Francis Howell School District
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3991
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kristine McCauley sued Francis Howell School District on behalf of her minor son J.M. for unlawful isolation and restraints.
- Second amended complaint asserted violations of the Equal Protection Clause, § 1983/1988, ADA, Section 504, and MHRA; federal claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust under IDEA, MHRA claims dismissed without prejudice.
- J.M. began kindergarten in 2011 in the district; he qualified for IDEA services and had an IEP due to multiple disabilities.
- Between February 2014 and September 2014, J.M. was allegedly placed in restraints and isolation without McCauley’s knowledge; she withdrew J.M. from the district on September 5, 2014.
- McCauley initially pleaded IDEA and common law torts; after amendments, the case included IDEA-exhaustion issues and asserted non-IDEA remedies, including damages.
- The district court dismissed for lack of exhaustion; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, focusing on whether the suit seeks relief for denial of a FAPE under the IDEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDEA exhaustion applies to claims under other statutes | McCauley contends exhaustion not required because relief is not a FAPE denial. | District argues all claims seeking relief under IDEA are subject to exhaustion. | Exhaustion applies when relief sought is for denial of a FAPE. |
| Whether the gravamen is denial of a FAPE | Claims are non-educational discrimination, not a FAPE denial. | Gravamen includes education-related failure to implement IEP and provide needed services. | Gravamen is denial of a FAPE; claims subject to IDEA exhaustion. |
| Whether exceptions to exhaustion apply (futility, inadequate relief, or general-policy contrary-to-law) | Exhaustion futile or administrative remedies inadequate for damages relief. | Exceptions do not excuse exhaustion; damages do not override exhaustion rule. | No applicable exception; exhaustion required. |
Key Cases Cited
- J.B. ex rel. Bailey v. Avilla R-XIII School Dist., 721 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2013) (exhaustion policy and its limits in IDEA cases)
- Muskrat v. Deer Creek Pub. Sch., 715 F.3d 775 (10th Cir. 2013) (district court exhaustion when claims are education-related)
- Moore v. Kansas City Public Schools, 828 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2016) (distinguishes education-related complaints from non-educational torts)
- M.P. ex rel. K. v. Indep. School Dist. No. 721, 326 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2003) (exhaustion rule remains despite relief type; education-related claims stay under IDEA)
- Covington v. Knox Cnty. School Sys., 205 F.3d 912 (6th Cir. 2000) (whether a plaintiff may avoid exhaustion by damages claims)
- N.B. by D.G. v. Alachua Cnty. School Bd., 84 F.3d 1376 (11th Cir. 1996) (damages cannot exempt from IDEA exhaustion)