S.D. Ex Rel. A.D. v. Haddon Heights Board of Education, 833 F.3d 389

Background

S.D., a high-school student with chronic sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, and intermittent asthma, received Section 504 accommodation plans after frequent, medically excused absences that interfered with learning.
The Board adopted a new 2013–14 attendance policy (33‑day cap; only district‑approved home instruction excepted) that would cause retention regardless of excused status; S.D. amassed well over 33 absences.
Appellants allege the 504 plans failed to provide supplemental/homebound instruction, causing S.D. to fall behind academically; they contend the policy and the Board’s actions discriminated and retaliated against them for asserting S.D.’s rights.
Appellants sued under Section 504, the ADA, and §1983 seeking, inter alia, compensatory education and damages; they did not exhaust the IDEA administrative procedures before filing federal suit.
The District Court dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, holding IDEA exhaustion was required; the Third Circuit affirmed, applying Batchelor and related precedent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether non‑IDEA claims (ADA/§504/§1983) alleging discrimination and retaliation must first exhaust IDEA administrative remedies	Appellants: their claims are independent statutory rights not properly remediable under IDEA because S.D. may be ineligible and the ADA/§504 FAPE standard differs	Board: the alleged injuries are educational and relate to provision of a FAPE, so §1415(l) requires exhaustion before suit	Court: Held exhaustion required—claims relate to identification/evaluation/placement or provision of a FAPE and could be remedied through IDEA process
Whether S.D. is ineligible for IDEA relief such that exhaustion is unnecessary	Appellants: S.D. may be ineligible for IDEA services, so IDEA remedies are not "available" and exhaustion is not required	Board: allegations indicate a disability affecting education (asthma listed) and need for special/related services, so IDEA remedies potentially available	Court: Held cannot decide in Appellants' favor at pleading stage; allegations plausibly implicate IDEA eligibility, so exhaustion required
Whether differences between ADA/§504 FAPE and IDEA FAPE preclude exhaustion	Appellants: statutory standards differ, so IDEA administrative process cannot fully remedy ADA/§504 claims	Board: substantial overlap exists; IDEA remedies can address the educational harms alleged	Court: Held overlap sufficient and theory of grievance focuses on provision of instruction—remedies available under IDEA, so exhaustion required
Whether exhaustion requirement assumes a Child Find violation	Appellants: requiring exhaustion presumes a Child Find duty violation	Board: exhaustion inquiry is distinct from proving Child Find breach	Court: Held exhaustion requirement does not equate to a finding of Child Find violation; it merely requires administrative process first

Key Cases Cited

Batchelor v. Rose Tree Media Sch. Dist., 759 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2014) (IDEA exhaustion required for retaliation claims that relate to provision of a FAPE)
Komninos v. Upper Saddle River Bd. of Educ., 13 F.3d 775 (3d Cir. 1994) (IDEA grants jurisdiction to district court only after exhaustion)
D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2012) (overlap between IDEA and §504 obligations; Child Find obligation discussion)
P.P. ex rel. Michael P. v. W. Chester Area Sch. Dist., 585 F.3d 727 (3d Cir. 2009) (IDEA and §504 perform similar functions and IDEA procedures may govern §504 claims)
Rose v. Yeaw, 214 F.3d 206 (1st Cir. 2000) (non‑IDEA claims that "palpably relate" to FAPE must be exhausted)
Charlie F. v. Bd. of Educ. of Skokie Sch. Dist. 68, 98 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 1996) (assessing the ‘‘theory behind the grievance’’ to determine exhaustion requirement)
Jeremy H. v. Mount Lebanon Sch. Dist., 95 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 1996) (IDEA exhaustion bars repackaging IDEA‑type claims under other statutes)