741 F.3d 1195
11th Cir.2013Background
- K.A. has Down’s Syndrome, mild intellectual disability, and speech-language impairment; IDEA requires a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) via an IEP.
- An IEP was created for first grade after kindergarten; it mixed mainstream and special classes.
- After first grade began, district proposed more time in special classes and a less mainstreamed placement at a different school against parents’ wishes.
- Parents observed the proposed new school and preferred staying at the current school with additional supports.
- The district amended the IEP over parents’ objections; a “stay put” arose pending resolution; the parents pursued a due process hearing and appeal.
- Court proceedings ultimately addressed procedural compliance and remedies rather than the IEP’s substantive adequacy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of parents’ challenge to the amended IEP | Parents challenge remains live; repetition likely | Case mooted by end of year | Not moot; capable of repetition, yet evading review |
| Notice and procedural safeguards under IDEA | Notice and safeguards inadequately provided | Notice defects did not impede participation; no relief warranted | Notice defects not fatal; no relief granted |
| Authority to amend IEP without parental consent | District must obtain consent or sue via due process | Team may amend at meeting without parental consent; no veto implied | IEP team can amend at a meeting without parental consent |
| Burden of proof in amendment or challenges under Schaffer v. Weast | Burden lies on parents challenging the amendment | Burden lies on the party seeking relief; parents challenged amendment | Burden on party seeking relief; Schaffer does not require district to file a complaint |
| District court standard of review and evidence | Should apply traditional summary judgment standard with full record | Loren F. standard applies; limited deference to hearing officer | District court properly applied Loren F. framework; no new evidence required |
| 21/1983 claims for IDEA violations | IDEA violations permit §1983 claims for due process | IDEA provides exclusive remedies; §1983 barred | §1983 claims barred; IDEA provides sole remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2005) (burden of proof generally lies on party seeking relief)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1988) (capable of repetition, yet evading review; context of IDEA predecessor)
- Doe v. Alabama, 915 F.2d 651 (11th Cir. 1990) (procedural deficiencies not per se actionable without harm)
- Weiss v. School Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty., 141 F.3d 990 (11th Cir. 1998) (procedural defects must show harm or impede participation)
- Loren F. ex rel. Fisher v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 349 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard for reviewing administrative proceedings in IDEA cases)
- Diaz-Fonseca v. Puerto Rico, 451 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2006) (discussion of alternative remedies under constitutional rights)
- Schaffer v. Weast (Schaffer references), — (—) (context used to discuss burden and procedure (see above))