Jacquie Albright v. Mountain Home School District, 926 F.3d 942

Background

Child Doe, a student with autism and significant intellectual deficits, attended Mountain Home School District under an IEP and BIP; parent Jacquie Albright was an IEP-team member and had a contentious relationship with the District.
Albright filed multiple due process complaints; the dispute here concerns denial of a FAPE from Nov. 15, 2013 to Oct. 17, 2014 (the third due process complaint), which led to an 11-day administrative hearing and a detailed hearing officer decision finding no FAPE denial.
The hearing officer credited District witnesses (notably BCBA Susanne Belk), found the IEP and BIP were adequate and provided educational benefit, and found Albright had meaningfully participated in IEP development.
The district court affirmed the hearing officer, denied Albright’s Rule 59/60 motion, struck Albright’s late summary-judgment filings for lack of good cause/excusable neglect, and granted summary judgment to the District on remaining federal claims, then declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo whether a FAPE was provided (giving due weight to administrative findings), reviewed the district court’s discretion on extensions/striking filings, and addressed exhaustion where pre-hearing matters were settled.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IEP/BIP denied Child Doe a FAPE	IEP and BIP were inadequate; BIP not working; Child Doe made insufficient academic progress	IEP/BIP were reasonably calculated to provide progress given Child Doe’s disabilities; evidence shows academic improvement	Court: IEP/BIP adequate; Child Doe received a FAPE (affirming hearing officer and district court)
Whether use of sensory integration techniques violated IDEA’s peer‑reviewed requirement	Sensory integration is pseudoscientific and displaced evidence‑based treatments, denying FAPE	District used extensive evidence‑based practices and sensory techniques were recommended by OT; no record showing sensory techniques prevented peer‑reviewed services	Court: No record that sensory integration denied FAPE; use did not render IEP inadequate
Whether Albright was denied meaningful parental participation in IEP process	District excluded or held meetings without her, hindering input	Albright attended most meetings, actively participated by emails and meetings; September meeting absence was by choice and notices were adequate	Court: Albright meaningfully participated; any notice technicality did not affect IEP or deny FAPE
Whether pre‑hearing settlements satisfy IDEA exhaustion or render claims non‑exhausted	Settlement should count as exhaustion or exhaustion would be futile	IDEA requires administrative findings/decision from a due‑process hearing for exhaustion; settlement is pre‑decision and thus not exhaustion	Court: Settlement does not satisfy exhaustion; claims outside the hearing decision were unexhausted and barred (futility not argued below)
Whether district abused discretion in denying extensions and striking late filings (excusable neglect)	Counsel’s hectic schedule and family health issues justified extension / excusable neglect	Repeated deadline failures, lack of diligence, insufficient justification; court repeatedly warned; delay was not excusable	Court: No abuse of discretion; motion denied and late filings struck; excusable neglect not shown
Whether §504 retaliation claims survived summary judgment	Various acts (false reports, strip searches, withheld services) constituted adverse actions/retaliation	District: many allegations unexhausted or factually refuted; surviving allegations mirror IDEA claims which failed	Court: Summary judgment for District — factual allegations refuted or precluded by IDEA ruling on FAPE; retaliation claims fail

Key Cases Cited

Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE–1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress)
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (IEP centrality to IDEA’s educational delivery)
Bradley ex rel. Bradley v. Ark. Dept. of Educ., 443 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2006) (deference to hearing officer credibility and IDEA evidence standards)
Fort Zumwalt Sch. Dist. v. Clynes, 119 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 1997) (IDEA does not require maximizing a child’s potential)
Gill v. Columbia 93 Sch. Dist., 217 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2000) (appellate review gives due weight to administrative findings)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (factors for excusable neglect analysis)