T. H. v. District of Columbia
255 F. Supp. 3d 55
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (parents) sued the District of Columbia on behalf of their 16‑year‑old daughter T.H., claiming discrimination under Section 504 and the DCHRA and alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress based on accommodations and classroom actions at Woodrow Wilson High School.
- Plaintiffs allege an inadequate 504 plan, failure to obtain appropriate psychological testing, and a teacher’s exclusion of T.H. for wearing perfume; they seek declaratory, injunctive relief, and damages.
- The District removed the case to federal court and answered, asserting as an affirmative defense that plaintiffs failed to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies.
- The District moved under Rule 12(c) to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, arguing IDEA’s exhaustion requirement applies and is jurisdictional, and plaintiffs did not exhaust.
- The complaint contains no allegations about pursuing or exhausting IDEA administrative remedies.
- The Court assumed arguendo that IDEA exhaustion applies but held that IDEA’s exhaustion requirement is non‑jurisdictional and thus an affirmative defense the District must plead and prove; because failure to exhaust is not clear on the face of the complaint, the District’s Rule 12(c) motion was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDEA’s administrative‑exhaustion requirement applies to plaintiffs’ claims | Plaintiffs mainly argue IDEA exhaustion does not apply to their claims (they sued under Section 504 and DCHRA) | District contends plaintiffs’ claims are subject to IDEA exhaustion because the relief sought overlaps with remedies available under IDEA | Court assumed arguendo IDEA exhaustion might apply but did not decide definitively whether it applies in this case |
| Whether IDEA’s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional | N/A (plaintiffs disputed applicability rather than labeling) | District contends exhaustion is jurisdictional, depriving the court of jurisdiction if not met | Court held IDEA exhaustion is not jurisdictional but a non‑jurisdictional claim‑processing requirement/affirmative defense |
| Who bears the burden to plead/prove failure to exhaust | Plaintiffs need not plead exhaustion on the face of the complaint | District says plaintiff must have pleaded exhaustion if it were jurisdictional | Court held defendant bears the burden to plead and prove failure to exhaust; plaintiff’s silence on exhaustion does not warrant dismissal under Rule 12(c) |
| Whether dismissal on Rule 12(c) is appropriate here for failure to exhaust | Plaintiffs argued dismissal unwarranted because complaint lacks exhaustion facts and IDEA exhaustion is not jurisdictional | District argued dismissal appropriate because failure to exhaust deprives court of jurisdiction | Court denied the Rule 12(c) motion because failure to exhaust was not clear on the complaint’s face and exhaustion is an affirmative defense for the District to prove |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (distinguishing jurisdictional rules from claim‑processing rules)
- Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 817 (use a clear statement rule to identify jurisdictional provisions)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (statutory limitations not clearly labeled jurisdictional should be treated as nonjurisdictional)
- Payne v. Peninsula Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. en banc) (IDEA exhaustion is nonjurisdictional; defendant bears burden)
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.) (defendant should generally raise nonjurisdictional exhaustion via summary judgment; 12(b) rare)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (PLRA exhaustion is an affirmative defense for defendant to plead and prove)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (analysis regarding whether statutory limitations are jurisdictional)