Kenneth McMillen v. New Caney Indep Sch Dist
936 F.3d 640
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- Chris McMillen, a student diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, emotional disturbance, and central-auditory-processing disorder, was served by New Caney ISD under an IEP from pre-K through part of junior year.
- His IEP was changed for junior year to remove prior placements (the district’s Pass Program) that had managed his behavior; parents objected but the district refused to amend the IEP.
- While in the regular classroom McMillen was taught by teacher Margaret Hudman, who collected his writings and reported them as threatening; he was arrested on a terroristic-threat charge and later placed at an alternative campus.
- McMillen’s parents accepted a county offer to drop the charge in exchange for a promise never to return him to the district; they did not complete the IDEA administrative process (only invoked limited early procedures).
- McMillen sued asserting Rehabilitation Act and § 1983 equal protection claims (after amending to drop the IDEA count); the district moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust IDEA procedures and the district court granted dismissal.
- The Fifth Circuit assumed the complaint’s facts true, analyzed whether IDEA exhaustion applies to non‑IDEA claims and to claims seeking damages not available under the IDEA, and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDEA exhaustion applies to Rehabilitation Act and § 1983 claims arising from McMillen's removal/expulsion | McMillen: exhaustion not required because he asserts non‑IDEA claims for discrimination and damages | New Caney ISD: exhaustion required because the suit challenges the denial of a FAPE and relies on IDEA processes/terminology | Court: Exhaustion applies—complaint substantively challenges denial of a free appropriate public education; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether exhaustion is required when plaintiff seeks remedies (e.g., emotional‑distress damages) that IDEA does not provide | McMillen: damages-only relief is not "relief also available under" the IDEA, so exhaustion is unnecessary | New Caney ISD: exhaustion required even if plaintiff seeks monetary damages, because administrative procedures must first address the alleged denial of FAPE | Court: Adopted the majority approach—exhaustion required even when plaintiff seeks damages for the denial of a FAPE; permitting bypass by pleading damages would subvert IDEA's scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (test for when non‑IDEA claims seek relief available under IDEA—focus on whether suit challenges denial of a FAPE)
- Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984) (IDEA initially treated as exclusive remedy for enforcing disabled students' educational rights)
- Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 2002) (exhaustion required even if plaintiff seeks monetary relief)
- Charlie F. ex rel. Neil F. v. Bd. of Educ. of Skokie Sch. Dist. 68, 98 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 1996) (refusing to allow plaintiffs to evade exhaustion by adding a damages claim)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) (punitive damages are not available under the Rehabilitation Act)
- J.B. ex rel. Bailey v. Avilla R–XIII Sch. Dist., 721 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2013) (holding exhaustion required even for damages claims challenging denial of a FAPE)