M.M. v. Lafayette School District
767 F.3d 842
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- C.M., a student with learning disabilities, received RTI (Slosson/SORT and DIBELS) screenings administered school-wide; RTI results were discussed by staff but full RTI documentation was not provided to parents or attached to the eligibility packet.
- In April 2007 the District conducted a special-education assessment (severe-discrepancy model) and found C.M. eligible for services for a phonological processing disorder; the Eligibility Summary referenced RTI corroboration but did not attach RTI data or describe instructional strategies/student-centered RTI data.
- Parents repeatedly sought more evaluation and privately obtained audiology and educational evaluations diagnosing central auditory processing disorder and dyslexia; parents requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE); District delayed and filed to defend its assessment.
- Administrative hearings (OAH) and district court litigation followed; ALJs and the district court mostly upheld the District’s actions, but the Ninth Circuit found some procedural defects.
- The Ninth Circuit held the District violated IDEA procedural requirements by failing to provide the parents with C.M.’s complete RTI data and failing to ensure that RTI documentation was attached and carefully considered by the full IEP team, which deprived the parents of meaningful participation and thus denied C.M. a FAPE; remanded on reimbursement, attorneys’ fees, and a §504 retaliation issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District violated IDEA by failing to provide parents RTI data and by not documenting RTI in the evaluation packet | Withholding RTI prevented informed parental consent and full IEP-team consideration | RTI was a general-education screening (not used to determine eligibility); District used other assessments and provided required statements | Court: District violated IDEA by not furnishing RTI records or attaching/documenting them for IEP-team consideration; procedural violation affirmed |
| Whether procedural violation denied C.M. a FAPE | Lack of RTI kept parents from meaningfully participating and from advocating necessary program changes | Other team members saw RTI; eligibility and services were otherwise appropriate | Court: Violation prevented meaningful parental participation and thus denied a FAPE; substantive adequacy not reached |
| Whether parents are entitled to reimbursement for private services and IEE costs | Reimbursement for private therapy, assessments, and tuition was warranted because District denied FAPE | ALJ/district court denied reimbursement because they found no FAPE denial or limited parents’ success; some costs already partially reimbursed | Court: Remanded to district court to reconsider reimbursement in light of FAPE finding |
| Mootness, statute of limitations, and other statutory claims (Dept. of Education, §504 retaliation) | Parents challenge ALJ rulings, agency oversight, and allege retaliation by District | District argues some claims are time-barred or moot; DOE has no supervisory authority over OAH; some §504 claims require exhaustion | Court: Most procedural/time-bar rulings and DOE dismissals affirmed; some claims moot; remanded limited issues (attorneys’ fees reconsideration and §504 reevaluation retaliation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (parental access to records and meaningful participation are essential under IDEA)
- Michael P. v. Dep’t of Educ., 656 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2011) (permitted use of RTI model; district violated IDEA when using only severe-discrepancy model)
- N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary Sch. Dist., 541 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2008) (procedural violations can warrant finding of denial of FAPE when they impede parental participation)
- Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (two-part IDEA inquiry: procedural compliance and IEP reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit)
- Burlington N., Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 719 F.2d 304 (9th Cir. 1983) (standard of review for district court findings of fact from administrative records)
- Payne v. Peninsula Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2011) (IDEA exhaustion applies only when relief sought is available under IDEA)