313 F. Supp. 3d 891
M.D. Tenn.2018Background
- P.G., a six-year-old student with autism receiving IDEA services, alleges school staff used mechanical restraints at a preschool graduation and that a kindergarten teacher at BCES physically abused him (including a facial strike on Sept. 8, 2016) and otherwise mishandled his disability-related behavior.
- Plaintiffs sued Rutherford County Board of Education under IDEA/SEBSA, Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Tennessee common-law negligence.
- RCBOE moved to dismiss; the Court treated the motion under Rule 12(b)(6) and applied the Supreme Court’s test from Fry v. Napoleon to decide which claims require IDEA administrative exhaustion.
- The Amended Complaint sought injunctive/educational relief and money damages; plaintiffs did not allege they exhausted administrative remedies or press an exhaustion exception.
- The court dismissed without prejudice (for failure to exhaust) the SEBSA/IDEA claim and ADA/Section 504 claims that challenge training and remedial services; it kept ADA/Section 504 claims based on the Sept. 8 strike and alleged physical abuse during the 2016–17 year. The state-law negligence claim was dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs must exhaust IDEA administrative remedies for restraint claim (SEBSA/IDEA) | Restraint occurred at a graduation and did not deny classroom instruction, so not an IDEA FAPE claim | Restraint at school implicates IDEA/SEBSA and thus exhaustion required | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust (Count One requires exhaustion) |
| Whether ADA/Section 504 claims about training and remedial supports require exhaustion | These are statutory discrimination claims under ADA/504 and need not be funneled into IDEA process | Claims about training/supports implicate provision of FAPE and fall within IDEA exhaustion requirement | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust (those ADA/504 claims implicate FAPE) |
| Whether ADA/Section 504 claims based on physical abuse (Sept. 8 strike and other assaults) require exhaustion | Abuse arose from disability and school context; could be IDEA-related | Physical assaults are discrete discrimination/assault claims that do not seek FAPE relief and need not be exhausted | Sept. 8 strike and 2016–17 abuse claims may proceed (exhaustion not required) |
| Whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law negligence claim | Plaintiffs asserted negligence against RCBOE | RCBOE argued GTLA and Tennessee law favor state-court resolution | Court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed negligence claim without prejudice under § 1367(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S.Ct. 743 (2017) (sets gravamen/FAPE test for IDEA exhaustion)
- F.H. ex rel. Hall v. Memphis City Schs., 764 F.3d 638 (6th Cir. 2014) (IDEA exhaustion applies even when plaintiffs seek money damages)
- Gean v. Hattaway, 330 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2003) (IDEA allows administrative remedies and court review; courts can fashion relief on appeal)
- Muskrat v. Deer Creek Pub. Schs., 715 F.3d 775 (10th Cir. 2013) (isolated instances of physical abuse may fall outside IDEA exhaustion)
- J.M. v. Francis Howell Sch. Dist., 850 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 2017) (allegations of restraints/physical discipline can implicate IDEA and require exhaustion)
- Covington v. Knox Cty. Sch. Sys., 205 F.3d 912 (6th Cir. 2000) (requesting money damages does not excuse exhaustion)