M.L. Ex Rel. Leiman v. Smith
867 F.3d 487
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- M.L., born in 2003 with Down Syndrome, is Orthodox Jewish and attends an Orthodox community in Montgomery County, MD.
- MCPS developed an IEP in 2013 after evaluating M.L.’s needs; plaintiffs rejected it as not addressing Orthodox Jewish cultural/religious instruction.
- Plaintiffs sought IEP goals incorporating Jewish laws, customs, and Hebrew literacy; MCPS declined as outside curriculum.
- ALJ held neither IDEA nor Maryland law requires religious instruction within an IEP and found MCPS’s IEP provided a FAPE.
- District court adopted the ALJ’s conclusion and denied plaintiffs’ reimbursement/placement requests at Sulam; plaintiffs appealed.
- Supreme Court decision Endrew F. affected the standard of progress but the court held the IDEA does not require religious instruction and MCPS provided a FAPE.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does IDEA require religious or cultural instruction in an IEP? | Leiman argues yes to address M.L.’s Orthodox needs | MCPS argues no such requirement exists | No; IDEA does not require religious instruction in an IEP |
| What is the proper standard of review for IEP adequacy in this case? | Leiman contends a broader standard should apply post-Endrew F. | MCPS asserts traditional Rowley framework applies and Endrew F. does not change outcome here | Use the district court’s modified de novo review with deference to ALJ findings |
| Does Rowley require equal education for handicapped children to be commensurate with nonhandicapped? | Leiman relies on Rowley to demand maximized potential | MCPS notes Rowley allows equal access, not equal outcomes | FAPE requires access to general curriculum and benefit, not maximal equality with nonhandicapped peers |
| Is M.L.’s curriculum adequately tailored to his “other educational needs” without religious instruction? | Leiman argues broader “other educational needs” include Hebrew, kosher awareness | MCPS properly limited needs to non-religious, general educational goals | Yes; IEP addressed non-general-education needs but not religious instruction, which is not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (FAPE is access to education providing some educational benefit, not maximum potential)
- Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (S. Ct. 2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable progress; not merely de minimis)
- O.S. v. Fairfax Cty. Sch. Bd., 804 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for IDEA is modified de novo with deference to ALJ findings)
- Peck ex rel. Peck v. Lansing Sch. Dist., 148 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 1998) (IDEA has secular purpose; primary effect does not advance religion)
- Devine v. Indian River Cty. Sch. Bd., 249 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2001) (generalization across settings not required to show educational benefit)