879 F.3d 1274
11th Cir.2018Background
- Triplets (E.P., D.P., K.P.) and A.C. diagnosed with autism; parents sought one-on-one ABA-based therapy (30 hours/week) after early-intervention services ended.
- Broward County School Board developed IEPs that listed PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System) under "assistive technology." PECS was found to be an ABA-based, DTT-form intervention.
- Parents (L.M.P. for the triplets; C.C. and P.C. for A.C.) alleged the School Board had a categorical, predetermined policy refusing to include ABA services in IEPs and brought IDEA and related claims.
- Administrative hearing denied relief; district court held a bench trial and found for the School Board on all counts except a harmless procedural exclusion for an initial meeting (nominal damages $1).
- The sole contested appellate issue: whether plaintiffs had standing to challenge an alleged School Board policy of never including ABA services in IEPs when each child’s IEP in the record included an ABA-based intervention (PECS).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge alleged categorical policy never to include ABA in IEPs | Parents claim a procedural injury: denial of meaningful participation because the Board applied a predetermined policy refusing ABA services | School Board argues plaintiffs suffered no procedural injury because each IEP included an ABA-based intervention (PECS) so the policy was not applied to them | Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the alleged policy because an ABA-based service was included in their IEPs |
| Whether inclusion of PECS created an enforceable ABA service under IDEA procedures | Parents argue PECS reference was a nonbinding suggestion and did not substitute for the specific ABA services demanded | School Board contends PECS is an ABA-based intervention and its inclusion shows ABA was provided in the IEPs | Court treated the question of adequacy/implementation as a substantive Rowley issue, not the standing/procedural question before it |
| Scope of relief available under procedural Rowley claim | Parents sought to invalidate IEPs based on predetermination | School Board maintained that any dispute over sufficiency belongs to substantive review or implementation claims | Court affirmed that procedural violations require concrete, particularized injury; mere disagreement over service type is not a procedural injury when an ABA-based service was included |
| Proper avenue to challenge adequacy of ABA services (if at all) | Plaintiffs could not challenge policy if Board included ABA; they argued the inclusion was insufficient | School Board argued plaintiffs could have pursued substantive IDEA challenges or enforcement of IEP implementation | Court noted plaintiffs could have challenged IEPs on substantive grounds or implementation but did not; those avenues were distinct from the standing issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Winkleman ex rel. Winkleman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007) (IDEA guarantees children a free appropriate public education)
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (two-part IDEA inquiry: procedural compliance and substantive adequacy)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
- R.L. v. Miami-Dade Cty. Sch. Bd., 757 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2014) (IEP process is collaborative; courts review IDEA claims under Rowley framework)
- Sch. Bd. of Collier Cty. v. K.C., 285 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2002) (procedural violations warrant relief only if they cause substantive harm)
- Doe v. Ala. State Dep’t of Educ., 915 F.2d 651 (11th Cir. 1990) (same principle on procedural harm under IDEA)