Jane Doe v. Dallas Independent School Dist
941 F.3d 224
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- T.W., a special-needs student in Dallas ISD, was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a classmate (including an alleged rape); school officials were notified but responded inadequately; T.W.’s mother (Doe) withdrew her daughter and sued under Title IX.
- The district court initially dismissed Doe’s Title IX complaint for failure to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l), reasoning the claim could have been brought under the IDEA.
- After that dismissal, Doe filed both Title IX and IDEA claims with a special-education hearing officer; the officer dismissed the IDEA claim as time-barred and said he lacked jurisdiction over the Title IX claim.
- Doe refiled in federal court after the Supreme Court decided Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools; the district court again dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1), holding § 1415(l) barred the Title IX suit as intertwined with a potential IDEA claim.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed: applying Fry, the court held § 1415(l) exhaustion is required only when the gravamen of the complaint seeks relief available under the IDEA (i.e., relief for denial of a FAPE); here the gravamen was deliberate indifference to sexual harassment (sex discrimination) that a non-disabled student could allege, so exhaustion was not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1415(l) bars Doe’s Title IX suit | Fry means exhaustion applies only when relief sought is for denial of a FAPE; Doe seeks sex-discrimination relief, not IDEA relief | Doe’s Title IX theory requires proving denial of educational opportunity/benefit, so § 1415(l) applies | Reversed: § 1415(l) does not apply because gravamen is sex discrimination, not denial of a FAPE |
| Whether Doe’s post-dismissal pursuit of IDEA proceedings shows the complaint’s gravamen is IDEA-related | Doe only pursued administrative remedies after the district court’s dismissal order, so history does not show gravamen concerns FAPE | Initial pursuit of IDEA remedies is strong evidence the claim concerns FAPE | Court finds history supports Doe (she pursued administratively only after dismissal), so it does not change the gravamen analysis |
| Whether seeking money damages or overlap with IDEA remedies makes exhaustion required (McMillen tension) | Fry controls: exhaustion depends on gravamen, not on form of relief sought | McMillen suggests exhaustion may apply even when damages are sought if gravamen is denial of FAPE | Court distinguished McMillen and did not decide the damages question; focused on gravamen test from Fry |
| Whether administrative dismissal of the IDEA claim as time‑barred left Doe without a federal forum | Doe: time-barred administrative ruling does not bar Title IX suit if IDEA exhaustion is not required under Fry | Dallas ISD: administrative non-exhaustion means § 1415(l) precludes federal suit | Court held administrative time-bar irrelevant here because § 1415(l) does not apply to Doe’s Title IX claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (establishes gravamen test for when IDEA § 1415(l) exhaustion applies)
- Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999) (Title IX deliberate-indifference standard requires denial of educational opportunity)
- McMillen v. New Caney Indep. Sch. Dist., 936 F.3d 640 (5th Cir. 2019) (Fifth Circuit decision applying IDEA exhaustion where gravamen concerned denial of a FAPE)
- Griener v. United States, 900 F.3d 700 (5th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for 12(b)(1) de novo)