T. B. v. Northwest Indep School Dist, 980 F.3d 1047

Background

T.B., a student with autism and ADHD in Northwest ISD, alleges a teacher physically assaulted him on April 4, 2017 (knocked to ground, dragged through classrooms, climbed on top, kicked).
T.B.’s request for an IDEA due‑process hearing was filed more than one year after the incident and was dismissed as untimely under Texas law.
On the same day the due‑process complaint was dismissed, T.B. sued the district and school employees in federal court under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act (later dropping one defendant).
The District moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing T.B. failed to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies; the district court granted the motion and dismissed without prejudice.
The Fifth Circuit majority affirmed, holding the gravamen of T.B.’s complaint seeks relief for the denial of a FAPE and therefore required IDEA exhaustion; the court also upheld denial of T.B.’s Rule 59(e) motion and leave to amend.
Judge Higginson dissented, arguing the district court failed to consider Fry’s footnote 9 (physical‑assault exception), should have applied a claim‑by‑claim analysis, and that the prior administrative filing does not necessarily compel exhaustion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ADA/Rehab Act claims required IDEA administrative exhaustion	T.B.: complaint does not invoke IDEA or FAPE; 12(b)(1) limited to pleadings	District: prior due‑process filing and complaint’s substance seek relief available under IDEA (FAPE), so exhaustion required	Court: Held exhaustion required; affirmed dismissal without prejudice
Whether alleged teacher assault falls within Fry’s physical‑abuse exception (Footnote 9)	T.B.: teacher’s actions were an unprovoked assault arising from animus/frustration, so exhaustion not required	District: conduct in special‑education context constitutes a "restraint" and relates to special‑education services, so exhaustion required	Majority: disagreed that all physical force is outside IDEA; on this record gravamen is denial of FAPE so exhaustion required; dissent would remand to assess footnote 9 applicability
Whether T.B. could raise Fry/assault arguments in a Rule 59(e) motion after dismissal	T.B.: raised Fry footnote 9 and other arguments in motion to reconsider	District: such arguments were waived and should have been raised earlier	Court: Rule 59(e) cannot be used to raise arguments that should have been made earlier; denial of reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion
Whether exhaustion analysis must be done claim‑by‑claim	T.B.: court should analyze each statutory and constitutional claim separately under Fry	District: analysis of the complaint as a whole suffices	Majority: rejected a mandatory claim‑by‑claim rule; dissent: urged claim‑by‑claim approach and remand

Key Cases Cited

Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (establishes test whether suit seeks relief for denial of a FAPE; provides two hypotheticals and footnote about physical‑abuse exception)
Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 941 F.3d 224 (5th Cir. 2019) (applies Fry to hold sexual‑assault claims not subject to IDEA exhaustion when gravamen is non‑educational)
McMillen v. New Caney Indep. Sch. Dist., 939 F.3d 640 (5th Cir. 2019) (prior allegations of IDEA violations weigh toward finding gravamen concerns FAPE; exhaustion required even for damages unavailable under IDEA)
McDonnel Grp., L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Ins. SE, 923 F.3d 427 (5th Cir. 2019) (standards for reviewing Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal de novo)
Wellman v. Butler Area Sch. Dist., 877 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2017) (endorses claim‑by‑claim approach under Fry when determining whether exhaustion is required)
Doucette v. Georgetown Pub. Schs., 936 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2019) (applies Fry on a claim‑by‑claim basis)
Muskrat v. Deer Creek Pub. Schs., 715 F.3d 775 (10th Cir. 2013) (isolated torts by school staff are not necessarily funneled into IDEA exhaustion)
McCormick v. Waukegan Sch. Dist. No. 60, 374 F.3d 564 (7th Cir. 2004) (physical injuries from school staff are not remediable by IEP changes and thus may be outside IDEA exhaustion)